US President Donald Trump on Tuesday extended a delay on enforcing a ban against TikTok until December 16, marking the fourth postponement of a law designed to force the app’s sale from its Chinese owner.The announcement, made through an executive order, came despite Trump telling reporters earlier Tuesday that the United States and China had reached a deal over a new ownership structure for the US business of the hugely popular video-sharing app.The extension follows previous delays issued in January, April and June as the administration navigates the complex legal and national security implications surrounding TikTok’s operations in the United States.The latest delay was set to expire on Wednesday, which would have enabled a US law signed in 2024 by then-president Joe Biden to force the closure of TikTok in the United States because of its Chinese ownership.The legislation was designed to address national security concerns over TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance and its potential ties to the Chinese government.But Trump, whose 2024 election campaign relied heavily on social media and who has said he is fond of TikTok, put the ban on pause.The app has faced scrutiny from US officials who worry about data collection and content manipulation. TikTok has repeatedly denied sharing user data with Chinese authorities and has challenged various restrictions in federal court.”We have a deal on TikTok; I’ve reached a deal with China. I’m going to speak to President Xi (Jinping) on Friday to confirm everything,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday as he left the White House for a state visit to Britain.”We have a group of very big companies that want to buy it,” Trump said, adding that he would “hate to see value like that thrown out the window.”China also confirmed what both sides on Monday called the “framework” of a deal that would be finalized in the phone call between the two leaders.TikTok boasts almost two billion global users.According to the Wall Street Journal, under the new arrangement, TikTok’s US business would be controlled by an investor consortium including cloud giant Oracle and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, with the Chinese owners keeping less than 20 percent of the US business, in accordance with the law.Both companies have very close ties to the Trump White House, and Oracle already plays a major role in TikTok’s US infrastructure.Parent company ByteDance’s existing US investors, including Susquehanna International, KKR and General Atlantic, would be part of the group owning roughly 80 percent of the new company.One of the major questions is the fate of TikTok’s powerful algorithm that helped the app become one of the world’s most popular sources of online entertainment.The preliminary deal was negotiated over two days of talks in Madrid between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng.Under the executive order, the US Justice Department is prohibited from taking enforcement action not only during the extended period, but also retroactively for any conduct that occurred since the ban was originally set to come into force — on January 19, 2025 — the day before Trump’s inauguration.

Devotees of fan favorite “Friends” will soon be able to sip a cup of Joey in a Manhattan recreation of the “Central Perk” cafe made famous by the sitcom.Just don’t expect the coffee to cost $3 a cup like it did in the acclaimed television show at the turn of the millennium.The latest reincarnation of the hot drink haunt will feature plush apricot-color couches and clipart-style logos faithful to the TV series that ran from 1994 to 2004.Central Perk Coffee Co, which already has an outpost in Boston, will run the Manhattan branch which will be based in the Times Square tourist hub and is due to open in late 2025.It announced the venture in a joint statement with Warner Bros. Discovery Global Experiences Tuesday.  “At the heart of (the Friends) story was always Central Perk, the iconic coffeehouse and the group’s home base, set in Manhattan,” said Warner Bros. Discovery Global Experiences executive Peter van Roden. A play on the name of Manhattan’s iconic Central Park, Phoebe, Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Joey and Monica would regularly gather in the fictious establishment. The name has been applied to a number of imitation cafes as far afield as Shanghai, China.Coffee blends offered by Central Perk Coffee Co include “We were on a ‘coffee’ break” and the “Pivot blend” — homages to two prominent storylines.

Smoke-choked air that fills their lungs, floods threatening their homes and debilitating heat: a group of young Americans testified Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel push is trampling their inalienable rights.Lighthiser v Trump is emblematic of a growing global trend of legal action as a tool to push action on planetary warming amid political inertia or outright hostility.At issue are three executive orders that together seek to “unleash” fossil fuel development at the expense of renewable energy.They are also contesting the government’s actions undermining federal climate science, from firing scientists to removing critical reports. A two-day hearing opened in a federal courtroom in Missoula, Montana where Julia Olson, lead attorney for the 22 plaintiffs, framed the dispute as a constitutional test.”Does the United States Constitution guard against executive abuses of power by executive order that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and to their liberties?” she asked.Michael Sawyer, representing the Trump administration, countered that the case itself undermined democracy.”This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit,” he argued. “We just had an election. One of the major issues in that election was a dueling perspective on emissions, energy policy, and they are now stepping in and asking the court to overrule the results.” – Witnesses grilled -The spotlight then shifted to the young plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, who described how climate change is reshaping their lives.J.M., a teenager from Livingston, Montana, said that even in her short life she has seen snowfall decline, wildfire seasons lengthen, and flooding worsen.One blaze forced her family to evacuate, and she remembers packing her stuffed toys and worrying about the family’s animals. “Just experiencing that from a young age put the fear of wildfire in me,” she said. Another plaintiff, Joseph Lee, 19, recalled wildfires in California last year that destroyed the home of a friend. “I don’t know if I’m going to be next — are my parents going to be safe?” he told the court.Asked why he chose to participate in the lawsuit, Lee, who has been hospitalized for heat stroke that nearly caused organ failure, said: “A better future is possible.”The young people faced tough questioning from government lawyers, who grilled J.M. over her family’s decision to keep three horses — arguing that raising them contributed to greenhouse emissions and implying she was being hypocritical.- Long odds -Expert witnesses also took the stand Tuesday, including renowned climate scientist Steven Running, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for being a co-author on a major UN climate report, and former senior White House official John Podesta. “In your expert opinion would their injuries get worse if more fossil fuels were to be unleashed under these executive orders?” Olson asked Running. “Unquestionably,” he answered. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that could open the door to a full trial. The federal government, joined by 19 conservative-leaning states and the territory of Guam, wants the case thrown out, but has not called their own witnesses.The plaintiffs hope to build on recent state-level wins: a 2023 Montana ruling that oil and gas permits violated the state’s constitutional right to a clean environment, and a 2024 Hawaii settlement mandating faster decarbonization of its transport sector.On the federal level, however, the record is bleak. The landmark 2015 Juliana v. United States case was dismissed after the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal earlier this year.During cross-examination, government lawyer Sawyer pressed Podesta for previously arguing against Juliana when he served in the government.But Podesta countered that while Juliana was too broad, and would have required reversing five decades of policy, in the new case the “remedy is direct and narrow” — “To pull back on specific actions that are heavily burdening these kids and will have direct impact on their lives.”It remains to be seen whether this central argument, key to the plaintiff’s case, plays.Judge Dana Christensen, an Obama appointee with a record of pro-environment rulings, is presiding — but even if the plaintiffs notch a win, the case could eventually land before the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.

Lyle and Erik Menendez, who have spent more than three decades behind bars for murdering their parents with shotguns at the family’s Beverly Hills mansion, have lost their bid for a new trial.A Los Angeles judge’s ruling late Monday is the latest blow to the Menendez brothers’ high-profile campaign for freedom, after they were each denied parole last month.The pair, whose plight was famously dramatized in a recent hit Netflix series, had argued that recently uncovered evidence surrounding alleged sexual abuse at the hands of their father warranted a new trial.But the judge found the fresh evidence did not add to “the allegations of abuse that the jury already considered, yet found that the brothers planned, then executed that plan, to kill their abusive father and complicit mother.”Nor would it have led to the original murder trial ruling the brothers had acted in self-defense, because the new evidence does not “demonstrate the brothers experienced a fear of imminent peril,” ruled Judge William C. Ryan, according to a court-issued memorandum.The brothers killed Jose and Kitty Menendez with shotguns in 1989, in what prosecutors in the ensuing trial said was a cynical attempt to get their hands on a large family fortune.The Menendez brothers claim the killings were committed after years of abuse, including alleged sexual abuse by their father.The new evidence included a letter allegedly written by Erik to his cousin detailing abuse, and allegations of abuse by Jose Menendez against another man. Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, can appeal Monday’s ruling.Having had their original sentences of life without the possibility of parole reduced to 50-year terms in May, they will be eligible to apply for parole again in three years.Their only other chance of sooner release is if California Governor Gavin Newsom grants them clemency.