President Donald Trump on Sunday said a deal has been struck to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations to a group of “very wealthy people,” a declaration that, if true, marks a pivotal moment in the long-running battle over the app’s future in the United States.

In an interview aired on Fox News, Trump claimed the buyer would be revealed in “about two weeks,” adding that Chinese approval would “probably” be necessary, but he expressed confidence that Chinese President Xi Jinping would greenlight the transaction.

A Reprieve in a High-Stakes Standoff

The announcement follows months of rising pressure on TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest its U.S. operations or face a total ban. Trump has already extended the government’s deadline three times — most recently on June 19 — pushing the cut-off to September 17, 2025.

A White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, said the extension aims to give the administration enough time to “ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.”

A failure to complete the sale would likely result in TikTok being forced off U.S. app stores and disabled for American users, a move that would affect over 170 million Americans who currently use the app.

Temporary Outage Revealed the Stakes

The urgency of the matter was laid bare earlier this year when TikTok briefly went offline for millions of U.S. users on January 19, the original deadline for ByteDance to divest. Many users were met with a stark message:

“Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now.”

Access was later restored after Trump intervened, but the temporary blackout served as a preview of what could happen if the September deadline is missed.

Who Are the Buyers?

While Trump declined to name names, he assured that the group behind the proposed acquisition comprises “very wealthy people.” Previous expressions of interest in acquiring TikTok have come from:

• Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who earlier this year revealed he was forming a consortium to buy the app.
• “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary, who has previously stated that TikTok’s value could surge if American-owned.
• YouTube star MrBeast, who hinted at interest, although more as a public gesture than a formal bid.
• Frank McCourt, the real estate billionaire and former LA Dodgers owner, who launched “Project Liberty,” a movement focused on “rebuilding the internet” and expressed interest in acquiring TikTok to shift control to users.

Despite the buzz, no buyer has been publicly confirmed, and it remains unclear whether Trump’s “wealthy group” overlaps with any of these known parties.

Chinese Approval Remains a Critical Hurdle

Perhaps the most uncertain variable in the process is Beijing’s role. Under China’s export control laws, any sale of TikTok’s algorithm, widely considered the app’s most valuable asset, would need approval from the Chinese government.

Trump acknowledged that caveat during his interview when he said “I would probably need China’s approval.”

China has previously shown reluctance to allow the transfer of the algorithm behind TikTok, especially to a U.S.-based buyer. In 2020, when a similar divestiture was floated under Trump’s first term, China imposed new export restrictions on artificial intelligence technologies — a move widely seen as an attempt to prevent ByteDance from offloading its recommendation engine.

If completed, the sale would represent a rare Chinese-U.S. technology decoupling, one that carries both diplomatic and financial consequences. ByteDance is one of the most valuable startups in the world, and TikTok is estimated to be worth anywhere between $30 billion and $300 billion, depending on how the sale is structured and whether the algorithm is included.

Moreover, the sale could have wider ramifications for how the U.S. treats other Chinese tech companies. It also comes at a time when President Trump is escalating trade tensions with China and other countries — including Canada, which he called off negotiations with after Ottawa moved ahead with a digital services tax targeting U.S. tech giants.

The TikTok situation also speaks to a broader push by the Trump administration to regain control over digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. TikTok’s vast user data and its influence among young Americans have made it a persistent concern for U.S. national security officials.

What’s Next for TikTok: Deal or Ban?

With less than three months to go before the September 17 deadline, all eyes are now on whether Trump’s mystery buyers can finalize the deal — and if China will allow it to proceed. Failing that, the U.S. may once again move to forcibly remove TikTok from its digital ecosystem, though Trump had signaled intention to extend the deadline once again.

“President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark,” Leavitt reiterated in a June statement, “but he is committed to securing Americans’ data from foreign adversaries.”

This cut is from a trending video on Aliko Dangote where one guy said many terrible things about the businessman.

My Comment: Let me defend Aliko Dangote as a Nigerian. We should not feed our young people with innuendos like the one pushed by the vblogger. This is an absolute lack of understanding of the market system. First, this guy does not know why things are expensive in Nigeria: power. In Ethiopia, Tanzania, etc, Dangote Cement gets subsidized electricity. As a result, Dangote’s products are cheaper when benchmarked with Nigeria where Dangote generates his own electricity. This is the same reason why your DStv may be more expensive in Nigeria than in Tanzania or Uganda as they run generators in MultiChoice Nigeria.

I have written extensively on the global Conglomerate Tax which is a construct that industrialized conglomerates “tax” nations to help them solve big problems. It is a global phenomenon. The problem in Nigeria is that only about 2-3 people are bold to dream and participate. And for those $billions, they demand concessions from the governments, to help governments solve governments’ problems.

Cities in America were shipping $billions just for Amazon to locate its second headquarters. Dangote would be a bad businessman to invest $10 billion without asking for things. If you have $10b to invest, I volunteer to meet Tinubu to get you some concessions. And do not invest $10b in Nigeria without asking for concessions from the government!

Dangote should be commended. Everyone is now talking about how he received the “refinery” from cronies because Nigerians have short memories. Suddenly, Dangote is a “monopoly” despite close to 50 years of Nigeria’s national failure in this business. What is wrong with Nigerians? The problem is not Dangote. The problem is us. There are opportunities in healthcare, steel, education, mining, agrro, etc in Nigeria. People can raise $billions and ask governments what they want. Again, I will help you get Mr. President to offer goodies!

That is how they do it in America: Elon Must received support via Tesla via EV credits; Amazon got US tax re-written waiving collection of sales tax which made the products cheaper; etc. Carnegie/Vanderbilt/etc supervised the enactment of eminent domains which made it possible to take private land for public good like railtracks!

Dangote does not have a perfect hit. His Lead Merchant Bank went bankrupt because Ovia, Elumelu were better. Dangote Noodles failed and Indomie Noodles acquired it because Indomie was better. Dangote Capital lost money and failed. But in the domains he understands, he defends them.

A man risks his empire to build a refinery. And people cannot commend him. If he puts that in a fixed deposit in Switzerland, he will get at least $1 billion on interest yearly. But unlike others, he builds in Nigeria. We need more Dangotes. My problem with Aliko Dangote is that he has nothing tangible in Abia State and that is one area he must be criticized! Lol

Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, is a term that’s become as overused as it is misunderstood. While commonly defined as a hypothetical AI system capable of outperforming humans across a wide range of intellectual tasks, what AGI actually means in practice depends heavily on who’s talking—and what they’re trying to sell. In the case of OpenAI and Microsoft, the ambiguity around AGI isn’t just academic—it’s contractual.

At the heart of their multibillion-dollar alliance is a clause that states their partnership ends once OpenAI reaches AGI. On paper, that might sound like a bold but clear benchmark. In reality, neither side has offered a precise definition. That confusion was compounded by a leaked document earlier this year suggesting AGI, at least to OpenAI, might simply mean an AI model that can generate up to $100 billion in profit—a purely commercial yardstick that raises more questions than answers.

However, AGI—whatever it means—is a loaded term in Silicon Valley. It signals ambition, investor confidence, and control. But it has now become a flashpoint between two companies that once boasted one of the closest partnerships in the AI industry. Behind the scenes, tensions are building.

Microsoft, which has pumped about $14 billion into OpenAI and supplies the bulk of its cloud computing power, is increasingly wary that OpenAI may prematurely declare AGI to trigger the partnership’s termination clause. The Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft executives were skeptical about agreeing to the clause in the first place, but accepted it out of desperation—at the time, the company was scrambling to catch up in the AI arms race.

That clause is now a legal tripwire. If OpenAI moves to declare AGI, Microsoft could challenge the declaration in court, accusing the company of acting in bad faith. But pursuing legal action would plunge the dispute into what one executive reportedly described as “a legal thicket,” with the risk of locking the issue in litigation for years.

According to The Information, OpenAI’s executives are currently eyeing a public AGI declaration based on the release of an advanced coding agent—one that surpasses the abilities of a top-tier human programmer. If that happens, Microsoft could lose access to OpenAI’s best models and intellectual property, including any future iterations of GPT. The fallout would be massive.

There are already signs that both parties are preparing for separation. Microsoft has quietly started building its own in-house large language models, aiming to reduce its dependence on OpenAI. The company is reportedly willing to trail OpenAI’s top models by just a few months, as confirmed by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, who said its off-frontier models will lag OpenAI’s by “three to six months.” Meanwhile, Microsoft is expanding its AI stack by integrating third-party models into Copilot.

The rivalry has spilled into infrastructure as well. Microsoft recently pulled out of two massive data center deals, a move insiders believe was linked to OpenAI’s shifting cloud needs. Although Microsoft was once OpenAI’s exclusive cloud partner, that changed after Project Stargate was launched, a $500 billion initiative backed by the US government to build AI infrastructure, including OpenAI’s own data centers. That project effectively ended Microsoft’s exclusivity—and strained relations further.

OpenAI, for its part, has complained that Microsoft’s infrastructure isn’t fast or scalable enough. Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, has stated that the company is “no longer compute-constrained,” underlining that it may no longer depend on Microsoft’s Azure platform for its most ambitious work.

On the business front, OpenAI has grown increasingly vocal about Microsoft’s demands. A separate report claims that Microsoft is asking for a disproportionately large share of OpenAI’s Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), well beyond what it has offered in return. OpenAI executives are reportedly exploring legal options to challenge what they see as anti-competitive pressure from Microsoft, especially in light of a potential $3 billion acquisition (codenamed Windsurf) that could shift critical IP into Microsoft’s control.

Amid this tension, Satya Nadella has distanced himself from AGI as a concept. The Microsoft CEO dismissed it earlier this year as “nonsensical benchmark hacking”—a clear shot at efforts to shoehorn commercial success into a technical milestone. Meanwhile, Altman has admitted that existing hardware and infrastructure “weren’t built for an AI world,” perhaps implying that true AGI is still out of reach.

Yet for all the confusion, one thing is clear: the AGI clause, once a theoretical safeguard, has become a live wire. If OpenAI declares AGI soon—based on whatever criteria it chooses—it could sever its relationship with Microsoft entirely, ending what was once hailed as one of the most strategically powerful partnerships in tech. And for Microsoft, that might mean walking away from a $14 billion investment, with little more than a trail of court filings and a bruised ego to show for it.