China Bats Away Trump Offer of Tariffs Reduction For TikTok Deal

US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he could cut tariffs on China if Beijing approves an American takeover of TikTok’s US unit has been dismissed by Beijing.

China poured cold water on the idea on Thursday, although analysts suspect it could still be part of a bilateral trade deal given the economic damage Trump’s tariffs could do to China’s slowing economy and Trump’s love of doing a deal.

The US leader said on Wednesday (March 26) that he would be willing to reduce tariffs to get a deal done with TikTok’s Chinese parent ByteDance to sell the popular short-video app used by 170 million Americans.

ALSO SEE: Carmakers Shares Tumble After Trump Announces 25% Auto Tariff

ByteDance faces an April 5 deadline to find a non-Chinese buyer for TikTok or it will face a US ban on national security grounds, which was supposed to have taken effect in January under a 2024 law.

The law is the result of concern in Washington that TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance makes it beholden to the Chinese government and that Beijing could use the app to conduct influence operations against the US and collect data on Americans.

Trump said he was willing to extend the April deadline if an agreement over the social media app was not reached.

He acknowledged the role China will play to get any deal done, including giving its approval, and told reporters that “maybe I’ll give them a little reduction in tariffs or something to get it done”.

TikTok did not immediately comment.

Beijing stands its ground

Beijing swiftly rebuffed Mr Trump’s suggestion, with its Foreign Ministry saying that it has “repeatedly stated our position” on TikTok, Reuters said.

“The Chinese side’s stance against imposing additional tariffs is also consistent and clear,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said.

China’s Commerce Ministry said its position on the tariff issue is consistent, and that Beijing is willing to engage with Washington on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit.

Mr Trump’s comment suggests the sale of TikTok is a priority for his administration, and important enough to use tariffs as a bargaining chip with Beijing.

In February and earlier in March, Mr Trump added levies totalling 20% to existing tariffs on all imports from China.

Getting China to agree to any deal to give up control of a business worth tens of billions of dollars has always been the biggest sticking point to getting any agreement finalised. The US President has used tariffs as a bargaining chip in the TikTok negotiations in the past.

On January 20, his first day in office, he warned that he could impose tariffs on China if Beijing failed to approve a US deal with TikTok.

Pause for possible deal could be extended

US Vice-President JD Vance has said he expects the general terms of an agreement that resolves the ownership of the social media platform to be reached by April 5.

Reuters reported last week that White House-led talks among investors are coalescing around a plan for the biggest non-Chinese backers of ByteDance to increase their stakes and acquire the video app’s US operations, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.

Jeff Yass’ Susquehanna International Group and Bill Ford’s General Atlantic, both of which are represented on ByteDance’s board, are leading discussions with the White House on the plan, the sources said. Private equity firm KKR is also participating, one said.

The future of the app used by nearly half of all Americans has been up in the air since a law, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, required ByteDance to divest TikTok by January 19.

The app briefly went dark in January after the US Supreme Court upheld the ban, but flickered back to life days later once Mr Trump took office.

The President quickly issued an executive order postponing enforcement of the law to April 5 and said in February that he could further extend that deadline to give himself time to shepherd a deal.

The White House has been involved in an unprecedented level in the closely watched deal talks, effectively playing the role of an investment bank.

Free speech advocates have argued that the ban unlawfully threatens to restrict Americans from accessing foreign media in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.