Business
TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal
President Trump’s intervention signals a lifeline for TikTok amid escalating tensions over its future in the US.
Barely half a day after TikTok went offline across the United States, the widely popular video-sharing platform is beginning to come back online. This swift reversal follows a statement from TikTok announcing its efforts to restore service, facilitated by new assurances from the Trump administration.
|
“In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service,” the company confirmed. “We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”
TikTok’s abrupt shutdown came as a law targeting its operations in the US was set to take effect. The legislation, passed under President Joe Biden’s administration, required TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a nationwide ban. It also prohibited American companies from offering services essential to the app’s distribution or maintenance. As uncertainty loomed, TikTok ceased functioning late Saturday night and disappeared from the Apple and Google Play app stores. In a dramatic turn of events, President-elect Donald Trump addressed the issue Sunday morning, promising executive action to delay the ban. He stated his intention to ensure TikTok’s return and suggested the importance of the app being operational for Americans to enjoy his Inauguration Day celebrations. “Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday,” Trump wrote, adding that his executive order would confirm no legal repercussions for companies that facilitated TikTok’s operations before his intervention. |
These reassurances appeared to be sufficient for TikTok and its partners, as users began regaining access to the app shortly after the announcement. While some devices experienced restored functionality, TikTok’s absence from major app stores persisted as of early Sunday afternoon.
Trump also floated an idea for a resolution to the app’s future in the United States, suggesting a joint venture that would grant the US a 50% ownership stake. TikTok has expressed willingness to collaborate, stating it is committed to working with the Trump administration on a long-term solution to ensure the app’s continued presence in the country. In an NBC interview, Trump confirmed he is considering granting TikTok a 90-day extension to comply with the divestment requirement, a decision he plans to announce imminently. “The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done because it’s appropriate,” Trump remarked. “It’s a very big situation.” As political wrangling continues, TikTok remains at the center of a contentious debate over free speech, economic interests, and national security. |
Business
Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs
From the Fraser Institute
By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens
As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.
The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.
Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.
However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.
A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.
Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.
Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.
Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020, Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.
This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.
The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.
Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.
Business
FDA bans commonly used food dye
FDA Finally Bans Cancer-Linked Red No. 3 Food Dye
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Wednesday that it is banning the use of Red No. 3, a synthetic dye responsible for the vibrant cherry red color in foods and beverages, citing its association with cancer in animal studies:
The dye is still used in thousands of foods, including candy, cereals, cherries in fruit cocktails and strawberry-flavored milkshakes, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy group that petitioned the agency in 2022 to end its use.
Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027 to reformulate their products. Companies that make ingested drugs, such as dietary supplements, will get an additional year.
This ban was LONG overdue. Unfortunately, the other synthetic food dyes that have also been linked to serious deleterious health effects still remain on the market. A few months ago, I summarized the harm linked to synthetic food dyes — outdated FDA standards expose Americans to toxic food dyes linked to cancer, neurobehavioral issues, and other health risks, demanding urgent regulatory action:
Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm |
||||||
|
||||||
by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
|
||||||
|
Batada et al found that nearly half (43.2%) of grocery store products contained artificial food colorings (AFCs), with Red 40 (29.8%), Blue 1 (24.2%), Yellow 5 (20.5%), and Yellow 6 (19.5%) being the most common. Candies (96.3%), fruit-flavored snacks (94%), and drink mixes/powders (89.7%) had the highest prevalence of AFCs, while produce contained none.
Oliveira et al summarized the deleterious health effects linked to synthetic food colorings in children: neurobehavioral disorders, allergic reactions, carcinogenic and mutagenic potential, gastrointestinal and respiratory issues, toxicity, developmental and growth delays, and behavioral changes.
Sultana et al illustrated the specific health hazards associated with particular synthetic food dyes:
Miller et al conducted a systematic review of the potential neurobehavioral impacts (activity and attention) of food dye consumption. They included 27 clinical trials of children exposed to synthetic food dyes and found that 16 of 25 challenge studies (64%) demonstrated evidence of a positive association, with 13 studies (52%) reporting statistically significant findings. The authors concluded, “Current evidence from studies in humans, largely from controlled exposure studies in children, supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders.” They also noted that:
“Animal toxicology studies were used by FDA as the basis for regulatory risk assessments of food dyes [25]. All current dye registrations were made between 1969 and 1986 based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago. These studies were not designed to assess neurobehavioral endpoints. Dye registration was accompanied by derivation of an “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) based on these studies. FDA ADIs have not been updated since original dye registration, although there have been several reviews of specific effects since then, the latest in 2011.”
Synthetic food dyes, widely prevalent in U.S. products and lacking nutritional value, rely on outdated FDA approvals despite evidence of widespread toxicity, carcinogenicity, and adverse neurobehavioral effects, strongly warranting urgent regulatory action to protect public health.
While the FDA has finally made a decision that will benefit public health, they are still allowing the dangerous COVID-19 genetic injections to be administered to all individuals aged 6 months and older despite far exceeding criteria for a Class I recall. The immediate removal of unsafe and ineffective gene therapy injections should be the first priority before anything other product bans.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following the McCullough Foundation and Nicolas Hulscher on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
-
Addictions16 hours ago
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
-
Dan McTeague1 day ago
Mark Carney would be bad for Canada
-
Business1 day ago
ESG Is Collapsing And Net Zero Is Going With It
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Mark Zuckerberg Tells Joe Rogan That Biden Admin Would ‘Scream’ And ‘Curse’ At Meta Employees To Censor ‘True’ Content
-
Business17 hours ago
FDA bans commonly used food dye
-
Alberta18 hours ago
Electronic monitoring of repeat offenders begins
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
It’s Time to Retire ‘Misinformation’
-
Carbon Tax19 hours ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax