Trump is set to sign an executive order extending TikTok’s operations for an additional 75 days, citing progress on negotiations with China. He has expressed intentions to collaborate with TikTok and China to finalise a deal, despite potential discontent from China regarding U.S. tariffs.
U.S. officials are concerned about TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance due to fears over user data access by the Chinese government. The app collects multiple data types, including location and browsing history, raising alarm about surveillance and manipulation.
Concerns Over Tiktok’s Algorithm
Concerns persist over TikTok’s algorithm potentially influencing public opinion. The app has already been banned on federal devices and in many states due to security concerns.
Legislative measures urging ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations have increased, including a previous executive order from Trump in 2020 aimed at banning the app if not sold. Recent bipartisan legislation proposes either banning TikTok or forcing its sale unless ByteDance gives up ownership.
The timeline for resolving these security matters remains ambiguous amid ongoing geopolitical tensions regarding trade and tariffs with China.
Temporary Extension And Ongoing Negotiations
The article outlines a temporary extension granted by Trump, granting TikTok an additional 75 days to continue operating, amid Advanced discussions between his administration and Chinese counterparts about a possible resolution. While the move suggests a level of cooperation not previously anticipated, it comes alongside a steady rise in political and national security pressure directed at the app’s Chinese parent company. U.S. officials have signalled growing distrust around ByteDance’s hold over the platform—particularly around its access to sensitive user data and the potential implications of surveillance, given China’s known digital authoritarian practices.
The executive order doesn’t wipe the slate clean—it’s a pause, not a pardon. While the current tone of negotiations sounds less rigid than 2020’s order—which flat-out demanded a divestiture or ban—it is still grounded in the same principle: preventing Beijing from influencing or intercepting data via one of the world’s most downloaded mobile apps. Lawmakers on both sides have sharpened their stance, adding weight to propositions that either remove ByteDance’s ownership or remove the app entirely from U.S. networks.
Those of us reading the signs through a lens of derivatives risk need to note the underlying drivers: geopolitical strain, legislative momentum, and highly specific data concerns—this isn’t general economic uncertainty or vague diplomatic posturing. When a platform like TikTok faces sweeping proposals forcing a sale or outright removal from the market unless strict outcomes are met, the reactions can spill deeply into tech equities, volatility instruments, and broader market sentiment.
Notably, the timeframe granted—75 days—offers a midpoint to watch for call buying, hedging adjustments, or volume movement around tech and communications indexes. That window likely holds as a provisional countdown, and if no settlement surfaces by then, or if resistance hardens politically, we could face a binary event either extending recent calm further—or reigniting an abrupt repricing of risk.
We should assume that trade sensitivities linked to tariffs and national security will stay embedded across these discussions, even as participants show new signs of flexibility. That sentiment won’t be evenly priced into option flows if traders stay anchored to past volatility patterns—historical memory can’t be solely relied upon in this case. Activity around derivatives tied to Chinese ADRs, specific large-cap tech stocks, or ESG-screened funds may jump unpredictably in that final fortnight.
And let’s be clear—the implications aren’t abstract. Policy details like mandated ownership shifts or outright bans often trigger sharp directional movement. With positions being adjusted around known legislative efforts and approaching deadlines, it’s not just a matter of news surveillance, but tracking how pricing models adapt over time to what’s actually legislated—not what’s tweeted or floated by anonymous sources.
For those watching implied risk, volume shifts and skew adjustments could be more revealing than official statements. We should look for signals in contract durations that stretch past the 75-day mark, where traders increasingly infer whether prolonged negotiations are priced in, or if they’re still hedging for a deadline-driven shake-up.
We’re not dealing with noise. Each executive order or Hill bill that moves forward has tethered results. It’s those links that drive measurable changes in IV crush, positioning changes around option expiry clusters, and divergences in sector correlation. That’s where attention should be placed—not on headlines, but how they translate to realised exposure.
