A struggling technology company that has ties to China and relies on TikTok made an unusual announcement this week. It had secured funding to buy as much as $300 million of $TRUMP, the so-called memecoin marketed by President Trump.

GD Culture Group, a publicly traded firm with a Chinese subsidiary, has only eight employees, its public filings show, and recorded zero revenue last year from an e-commerce business it operates on TikTok, the Chinese-owned video-sharing app.

But on Monday, GD Culture Group became the latest business with foreign ties to seize on Mr. Trump’s crypto venture, which channels profits directly to the Trump family and has generated conflicts of interest that have alarmed ethics experts. (Memecoins like $TRUMP are a type of cryptocurrency based on an online joke or celebrity mascot and have traditionally not had any utility beyond speculation.)

In its statement, GD Culture Group, which is traded on the Nasdaq, said it would spend $300 million on a stockpile of Bitcoin and $TRUMP, using proceeds from a stock sale to an unnamed entity in the British Virgin Islands, a popular tax haven. It confirmed that investment plan in a securities filing late Tuesday.

The purchase would create clear ethical conflicts, enriching Mr. Trump’s family at the same time that the president tries to reach a deal that would allow TikTok to keep operating in the United States rather than face a congressionally approved ban.

The announcement also shows how investors around the world, including some that have virtually no public footprint, have latched on to the president’s crypto ventures to boost their own business prospects.

Just asserting a connection to Mr. Trump’s business can quickly raise a company’s profile. GD Culture Group’s struggling stock rose 12 percent on Monday, before losing those gains the next day.

“Make no mistake. These foreign entities and governments obviously want to curry favor with the president,” said former Representative Charles Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the chairman of the House Ethics Committee. “This is completely out of bounds and raises all sorts of ethical, legal and constitutional issues that must be addressed.”

Investors in foreign countries have rushed to stock up on the $TRUMP coin since it hit the market in January. Some have stated explicitly that they hoped to use their purchases to influence Mr. Trump.

GD Culture Group was less clear about its intentions. In its statement, the company said it wanted to “enhance its balance sheet with high-performance, scalable digital assets.”

But any purchase by GD Culture Group would be the first known example of a China-linked firm buying Mr. Trump’s memecoin. In its financial disclosures, the company has noted that its subsidiary, Shanghai Xianzhui, might be influenced by demands from the Chinese government, though that is not unusual wording for a Chinese company.

“The Chinese government may intervene or influence its operations at any time,” the company said in an annual report filed in March.

In recent weeks, the Trump family has faced an intensifying backlash in Washington over its business dealings with foreign countries.

On the Senate floor on Tuesday, Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, spent 20 minutes walking through the various sources of overseas money pouring into the Trump family business, including the memecoin, a real-estate deal involving the government of Qatar and a separate $2 billion crypto deal with a firm backed by the United Arab Emirates.

“If a mayor of a small town was selling meetings at City Hall for a thousand bucks, he would be run out of town on a rail, but that’s exactly what Donald Trump is doing in the Middle East and all over the world,” Mr. Murphy said.

Representatives for the White House, the Trump Organization and GD Culture Group did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Trump started selling the $TRUMP coin three days before his inauguration, one of several crypto ventures that he and his sons have pursued. The coin’s price briefly surged, then crashed just as quickly, costing investors billions of dollars.

Last month, Mr. Trump and his business partners announced that the top 220 buyers of the coin would be invited to a dinner with the president at his golf club in Virginia, sparking another round of frantic trading that further enriched the Trump family. An analysis by The New York Times and the crypto forensics firm Nansen found that many of the coin’s buyers were based overseas in countries including Mexico, Singapore and Australia.

Under federal law, foreign investors are barred from donating to a political campaign or a president’s inaugural fund. But Mr. Trump’s crypto ventures have offered a new avenue for these overseas buyers to support him financially.

In April, a Mexico-based shipping firm, Fr8Tech, announced that it would spend $20 million on Mr. Trump’s memecoin as a way to “advocate for fair, balanced and free trade between Mexico and the U.S.”

The statement by GD Culture Group did not mention any policy objectives. Xiaojian Wang, the chief executive, said the company was embracing “industrial transformation” through cryptocurrencies and moving to “strengthen our financial foundation.”

It was unclear how exactly GD Culture Group had secured the funding to buy hundreds of millions of dollars of crypto. In its statement, the company did not reveal any information about the entity in the British Virgin Islands that agreed to purchase its stock.

In its filing with the S.E.C. on Tuesday, GD Culture Group confirmed its plans to buy $TRUMP — but again omitted any information about the entity that is financing the purchase.

Historically, the British Virgin Islands has been a favorite jurisdiction for overseas investors seeking to maintain confidentiality, because it is easy to set up a shell company there.

Matthew Goldstein contributed reporting.

When Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland signs his state’s budget into law as soon as Tuesday, it will signify the end of a difficult saga in which local leaders cut spending and raised some fees just to close a larger-than-expected $3 billion deficit.

But Mr. Moore, a Democrat, is already bracing for the next fiscal fight. Maryland and its finances are highly influenced by the federal government, and the Trump administration is looking to cut vast swaths of the aid it sends to states.

“We just made in Maryland the largest cuts to our budget in 16 years,” Mr. Moore said in a recent interview, adding that the steep cuts being contemplated in Washington could quickly prove “deeply damaging.”

Across the country, state leaders are beginning to express alarm about the budgetary fallout from President Trump’s economic agenda, warning that they will not be able to pick up the bill if the federal government reduces its funding for major public services. To governors and other officials, many of whom are Democrats, the fear is that Washington could sharply curtail federal programs that help states improve their infrastructure, respond to natural disasters, expand education and provide a suite of health, housing and nutrition benefits to the poor.

Republicans have framed their thinking as a matter of fiscal necessity and federalism, arguing that states should shoulder more of the financial burden for their citizens at a time when the national debt exceeds $36 trillion. But Mr. Trump has made no secret about the fact that many of his preferred budget cuts are meant to help offset his costly and ever-expanding legislative ambitions, including his desire to cut taxes.

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has suggested that Washington could provide less to states in response to major storms, forcing local officials to assume more recovery expenses. His new budget proposed scaling back federal aid to states on programs varying from public education to mental health. And Republicans in Congress this week proposed forcing local governments to assume a greater share of the costs for food stamps and other federal anti-poverty programs.

For states like Colorado, which recently shrank its spending to close a roughly $1 billion deficit, a sharp decrease in federal funding could result in even more staggering cuts. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, pointed to the example of Medicaid, the federally backed program managed by the states that provides health insurance to low-income families.

If congressional Republicans sharply reduce the amount they reimburse states for Medicaid, as some lawmakers have proposed, then Colorado is unlikely to be able to pick up the entire bill, Mr. Polis said. The result, he added, likely would be “hundreds of thousands of Coloradans losing the health care they have today.”

On Sunday, House Republicans released a draft plan for Medicaid that would limit states’ future ability to tax hospitals and other medical providers, a move meant to undercut a strategy that has historically helped those officials obtain federal funding.

At least eight states have warned in the meantime that they expect revenue disruptions on the horizon because of federal uncertainty, according to an analysis by the National Association of State Budget Officers. Some specifically cited spending cuts and other federal developments, including Mr. Trump’s global tariffs, as a source of their complicated fiscal predicaments.

Brian Sigritz, the director of state fiscal studies at the organization, said many states were also projecting less revenue growth and “will not be able to absorb the federal cuts” Republicans are pursuing.

The dynamic highlighted the difficult and consequential math facing Mr. Trump. Every fiscal change that he and his party is contemplating could carry significant ripple effects throughout the economy, affecting the public services on which millions of Americans and businesses rely.

Issuing his first budget since returning to office, Mr. Trump this month called for a sweeping retrenchment in Washington. The Trump administration proposed $163 billion in cuts targeting a staggering array of federal climate, education, health and housing programs, while increasing military spending and funding the president’s pledge to conduct more aggressive deportations.

Explaining the recalibration, Russell. T. Vought, the White House budget director, denounced broad categories of federal spending as wasteful or “woke.” Mr. Vought added that some of the proposed cuts reflected a belief that federal services “could be provided better by state or local governments (if provided at all).”

Under the banner of “revitalizing federalism,” the Trump administration recommended slashing $4.5 billion in education funds under a structure that White House officials have said “empowers states.” Mr. Trump also targeted more than $1 billion at the Environmental Protection Agency, and argued that its pollution-reducing grants had become a financial “crutch for states.”

And the administration looked to strip $2.4 billion from a federal program to help local officials finance clean water improvements. The president’s budget posited that states “are responsible for funding local water infrastructure projects, not the federal government.”

“It’s astounding, and what they said with it was, ‘You’ve had enough already. You should have rebuilt all your infrastructure,’” said Deborah B. Goldberg, the state treasurer of Massachusetts, on a call this week organized by an advocacy group for Democratic finance officials. “Well, every state has aging infrastructure, and you can’t rebuild it all at once.”

A spokeswoman for the White House budget office did not respond to a request for comment.

David Ditch, a senior analyst in fiscal policy for the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a conservative group, described the president’s strategy as a necessary corrective, citing the fact that Washington is already borrowing too much. “That money is extremely costly now,” he said, referring to high interest rates.

Mr. Trump’s budget threatened to leave states in a “precarious position to backfill billions of dollars for people, and to be frank, states can’t do that,” said Kim Johnson, the senior director for public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which supports greater federal spending on rental assistance.

Under Mr. Trump’s budget, housing programs would be cut by $26 billion next year, as part of an overhaul meant to shift more of the burden of managing rental assistance to the states. Many states already have outsize demand for these programs, and Ms. Johnson said that few would have the resources to absorb the loss of billions of dollars in federal aid.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this proposal were to go forward, there would absolutely be people losing their assistance,” Ms. Johnson added.

Mr. Trump’s budget is not law, and it ultimately falls to Congress to set the nation’s spending levels. Republican lawmakers have eagerly embraced the president’s cost-cutting philosophy, as they scramble to reduce spending and find ways to offset the price tag of their tax package.

House Republicans have looked to extract significant savings from safety net programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which aims to combat hunger. Under a blueprint released late Monday, party lawmakers proposed forcing states to assume some costs of providing nutrition benefits beginning in 2028. Historically, these food stamps have been federally funded.

“Their plan is just to push a bunch of these costs over to the states, and it’s going to force states, of course, to cut benefits, eligibility or both,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, said on Tuesday.

G.O.P. lawmakers have also targeted Medicaid, considering at times whether to limit the amount they reimburse states for covering low-income patients. While Republicans have dialed back some of their earlier, more aggressive proposals to cut the program, they still have tried to rethink some of the financing in Medicaid so that they can extract more than $800 billion in health-related savings over the next decade to pay for their tax ambitions.

“We are prepared to stop the billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program by beginning to rein in the loopholes,” said Representative Brett Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The panel convened Tuesday to start considering the Medicaid changes, which drew early protests from program supporters.

Studying a menu of early options, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in an analysis released earlier this month that state budgets would be able to absorb some, but not all, of the financial blow from a loss in federal funding, likely resulting in millions of people losing benefits.

In an updated report published by Democrats, the spending watchdog concluded that about 8.6 million people could lose insurance from the full suite of health changes that congressional Republicans seek. That figure could rise to 13.7 million if another set of federal health subsidies are allowed to expire at the end of the year, as planned, the analysis found.

“With the magnitude of the reduction in federal financing for Medicaid, it seems like it would be very challenging for states to make up and offset that amount and that magnitude of reduction,” said Robin Rudowitz, the director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research group.

Facing the potential loss of billions of dollars, a growing roster of state leaders had sounded alarms even before Republicans released that Medicaid plan, stressing that they cannot make up for a significant shortfall in federal support.

“We don’t have the ability to backfill any loss of federal funding,” Mr. Polis said.

The White House on Tuesday said that President Trump, while in Saudi Arabia, had secured $600 billion in deals with the Saudi government and firms. But the details the White House provided were vague and totaled less than half that number.

And a closer look at the projects the administration provided shows several were already in the works before Mr. Trump took office.

The announcement was made just before Mr. Trump spoke to a gathering of business leaders at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, where he said the only country hotter than the United States was Saudi Arabia.

“We are rocking,” he said. “The United States is the hottest country, with the exception of your country.”

Before turning toward serious foreign policy matters, including news that he was lifting sanctions on Syria, Mr. Trump meandered through his favorite talking points, bashing his predecessor, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and boasting of carrying swing states in the election.

“The Arabian Peninsula — beautiful place, by the way,” he said. “Beautiful place.”

The biggest deal announced was what the administration called “the largest defense sales agreement in history.” The nearly $142 billion agreement will provide the kingdom with state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services from over a dozen American defense industry companies.

The White House also included a commitment from the Saudi company DataVolt to move forward with plans to invest $20 billion in artificial intelligence data centers and energy infrastructure in the United States.

It also touted more than $2 billion in work American firms were performing on Saudi infrastructure projects, among them King Salman International Airport, King Salman Park and Qiddiya City, a massive entertainment complex. The construction company Jacobs announced its involvement in the new Saudi airport project last August. AECOM, likewise, had already won a contract to provide design and project management services for the Qiddiya City project.

The deals announced by the White House totaled around $283 billion — less than half the $600 billion promised by the Saudi crown prince — but the administration said those were “just a few of the many transformative deals secured in Saudi Arabia.” White House officials said more such deals would be forthcoming. (Organizers of the investment forum said that 145 deals were signed, totaling more than $300 billion.)

The White House said the package also included extensive training and support to build the capacity of the Saudi armed forces.

In his remarks at the conference, Mr. Trump hailed the kingdom’s rapid development and claimed the Biden administration had done little for the region.

He also went after Iran, calling it “the biggest and most destructive” force threatening the stability and prosperity of the Middle East, and vowing it would never have a nuclear weapon. At the same time, he said he was offering Iran “a new path and a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future.”

“I have never believed in having permanent enemies,” Mr. Trump said.

The American president drew sustained applause when he announced that the United States would lift sanctions against Syria, giving the new government there a chance to rebuild a country devastated by its long civil war.

But there was silence in the crowd after he said it was his “fervent wish” that Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords, the 2020 deal in which two of its neighbors established diplomatic relations with Israel. The normalization of relations with the Israeli government is deeply unpopular among Saudis, polling shows, and Saudi officials say that recognizing Israel would hinge on the creation of a Palestinian state.

Mr. Trump also spoke of the war in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas.

“The people of Gaza deserve a much better future,” he said. “But that will or cannot occur as long as their leaders choose to kidnap, torture and target innocent men, women and children for political ends.”

The White House announcement about the deals came hours after Mr. Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed a series of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

They included a letter of intent on future defense capabilities; a memorandum of understanding with the Justice Department; cooperation on space and infectious diseases; and memorandums of understanding on energy and mineral resources.

They also included an agreement between NASA and the Saudi Space Agency for a Saudi CubeSat to fly on NASA’s Artemis II test flight. The CubeSat will measure aspects of space weather at a range of distances from Earth.

The United States and Saudi Arabia also signed an agreement between the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and the Royal Commission for AlUla to support the conservation of the endangered Arabian leopard through the creation of a dedicated exhibit in Washington.

Before signing the agreements, Mr. Trump again encouraged Saudi Arabia to increase its investment in the United States beyond $600 billion over four years. Mr. Trump asked that number to be raised to $1 trillion, though economists say the kingdom does not have such financial resources available.

“We have the biggest business leaders in the world here,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re going to walk away with a lot of checks.”

Mr. Trump spoke to those gathered at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum, which served as a meeting place for the world’s rich and powerful. He has stocked his White House with billionaires, including Elon Musk, the world’s richest man; Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary; and David O. Sacks, his A.I. and crypto adviser. All spoke at the event.

“How do we win the A.I. race?” Mr. Sacks told those gathered. “The answer is that we have to build the biggest partner ecosystem. We need our friends like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other strategic partners and allies to want to build on our tech.”

The gathering at times felt like a Make America Great Again rally, if one attended by the chief executives of IBM, BlackRock and Citigroup. Many of them already have Saudi ties. One Saudi host joked that guests were “making aviation great again.”

Mohammad Bahareth, 40, a Saudi self-help influencer who runs a private space firm, showed up at the forum wearing a “Trump 2028” hat paired with a red tie. “President Trump always comes as a businessman,” he said. “This is the business mind-set.”

“We want technology,” Mr. Bahareth said. “We want enablement. We want to train our youth. We want the skills to be a superpower in this region.”

Leaders from Amazon, the defense giants Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and Halliburton were in attendance. So were Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, the world’s largest semiconductor company; Alex Karp, the chief executive of the software company Palantir Technologies; and Patrick Soon-Shiong, the businessman who owns The Los Angeles Times.

The president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, also spoke at the event. Saudi Arabia plans to host the World Cup in 2034.

The kingdom has been attempting to transform itself from a country wholly reliant on oil production into a more diverse economy. Saudi officials say that oil used to represent as much as 90 percent of government revenues; that figure is now closer to 60 percent, although economic activity remains highly dependent on oil, petrochemicals and oil-driven government spending.

Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the American investment firm, said Saudi Arabia had made “a statement to the world that we’re going to do it ourselves, that we’re going to build our economy, and we’re going to build our economy in a way that we are taking control.”

Mr. Trump told his advisers he wanted to score pledges of more than $1 trillion during his overseas trip, which will include stops in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two of the world’s wealthiest countries per capita.

Mr. Trump has claimed that, during a visit to Saudi Arabia during his first term in 2017, he secured $450 billion of investments in the United States. But an analysis by Tim Callen, an economist and former International Monetary Fund mission chief to Saudi Arabia, found that this amount did not fully materialize. The export of American goods and services to Saudi Arabia while Mr. Trump was in office from 2017 to 2020 totaled $92 billion, Mr. Callen found, less than the total during President Barack Obama’s second term.

The two other countries on Mr. Trump’s trip are expected to deliver major deals, as well.

The temporary reduction in tariffs that the United States and China announced in Geneva on Monday will lift, at least for now, the de facto trade embargo that had been in place between the two countries for the past month. It will reduce the chances that American shoppers will face empty shelves during the holiday season and perhaps limit the price increases they will have to endure. It sent stock prices soaring around the world.

But the deal does little to clear the cloud of uncertainty that has hung over the U.S. economy since President Trump took office in January.

If anything, the latest news serves only to reinforce the degree to which trade policy lies in the hands of one man, who sees his unpredictability as a strategic strength and scoffs at the kind of careful, deliberative process that has characterized policymaking under previous administrations.

In a little over a month, Mr. Trump has imposed steep tariffs on virtually every U.S. trading partner, then rolled them back temporarily. He has raised tariffs on China, then increased them further in response to Chinese retaliation, and now rolled back those tariffs as well — but only partially, and only for 90 days. Those back-and-forth decisions followed an earlier series of reversals, which on at least two occasions included tariffs that were announced and rescinded within a single day.

“Many of our trading partners now look at the U.S. and say, ‘Is this now the way trade policy continues in the future?’” said Steven J. Davis, a Stanford economist who has studied the way uncertainty affects the economy. “I think it’s quite clear that other countries around the world are reassessing their view of the United States as a reliable trading partner.”

A measure of economic policy uncertainty developed by Mr. Davis and two co-authors hit a record high this month, even surpassing the levels during the global financial crisis in 2008 and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Research has shown that such bouts of extreme uncertainty are damaging in their own right, discouraging companies from hiring and investing.

In the short run, the truce announced on Monday could provide some much-needed clarity. Under the agreement, which lasts 90 days, the United States will cut tariffs on goods from China to 30 percent from 145 percent. China will make a similar reduction in the retaliatory duties that it imposed on imports from the United States.

The new rates are still far above those in place before Mr. Trump took office and will almost certainly result in higher prices for consumers. But the reduction was large enough that it should allow for trade between the two countries — which had all but halted while the prohibitive 145 percent tariffs were in place — to resume to some degree. Many economists expect imports to surge in the coming weeks as companies race to restock while the lower rates remain in effect.

To investors, the agreement also served as a signal that leaders of both countries were looking for a way to step back from the full-blown trade war that had erupted over the past month. Economists had warned that the standoff could lead to “stagflation” — the combination of high inflation and slow growth — as the steep decline in commerce led both to higher prices and reduced demand for workers to drive delivery trucks, pack boxes and stock shelves. That outcome now seems less likely.

Stock indexes surged on Monday following the announcement and continued to rise on Tuesday. The S&P 500, which had fallen sharply when tariffs were announced, has now turned positive for the year.

“What it does is it signals that there is real, tangible progress,” said Sina Golara, a management professor at Georgia State University who specializes in supply chain issues. “There seems to be strong will and a political push to getting a deal. That’s all positive.”

But the agreement with China — like the framework deal with the Britain that was announced last week and the temporary rollback of tariffs imposed on other trading partners last month — is an executive action taken by Mr. Trump. It is not a legally binding treaty ratified by Congress. As a result, there is nothing to stop Mr. Trump from raising tariffs again at the end of the 90 days, or even before then.

On Monday, Mr. Trump said that if China doesn’t agree to a trade deal within the 90-day window, tariffs will go back up and be “substantially higher,” although not to 145 percent.

“If you’re just looking to get your imports in from China, I do think you have at least enough near-term certainty to start shipping as much as possible,” said Alex Jacquez, a former economic adviser to former President Biden who now works at the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank. “What I don’t think this does is decrease any long-term uncertainty because we still don’t know what the aim of Trump’s negotiations are with China or with anyone else.”

The short-term nature of the deal is likely to limit the benefits, said Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles. Companies will bring in products they need urgently, he said, but they will be reluctant to make bigger commitments, knowing the tariff rates could change yet again.

Executives he has spoken to are “hopeful, but very cautious,” Mr. Seroka said. “By no means has anybody said we’re out of the woods.”

For Learning Resources, an educational toy company in Vernon Hills, Ill., the 145 percent tariff rate was effectively an embargo. Rick Woldenberg, the chief executive, quipped at the time that the rate might as well be “100 billion percent.” He immediately paused some shipments, stopped filling open jobs and sued the Trump administration, arguing it had overstepped its authority.

With tariffs now lowered to 30 percent, Mr. Woldenberg said he would probably restart shipment of some of the goods that were stranded in China.

“We’ll probably bring it in because who the hell knows what they’ll do next,” he said. “This is, I suppose, better than the other kinds of chaos we were going through.”

But Mr. Woldenberg isn’t lifting his hiring freeze or making the other investments that have been on hold since tariffs took effect.

“We’re clinging to every dollar,” he said. “We’re going to need them because I have a new tax I have to pay.”

In surveys, many companies have said they are holding off on making hiring and investing decisions until they see where tariffs end up. A mere 90-day pause is unlikely to move them off the sidelines.

“When I’m out talking to business leaders, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Austan D. Goolsbee, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in an interview on Monday. “They can’t make decisions counting on this or any other thing lasting in a permanent way.”

Nor can the Fed itself. Officials have warned in recent months that the tariffs are likely to lead to higher prices and slower growth. But the constant changes in trade policy have made it hard for the central bank to chart a clear path forward for interest rates. Instead, policymakers are essentially on hold, waiting to see how the economy responds before making any decisions.

The deal in Geneva will reinforce that caution, said Sarah House, an economist at Wells Fargo.

“This is a good example of why they’re in wait-and-see mode,” she said. “This is an indication of why they’re not trying to get out ahead of the impacts of these tariff policies, because they could be walked back at any moment, on any weekend.”

Colby Smith contributed reporting.

CNN is getting ready to launch a streaming service. Again.

Three years after CNN’s parent company killed the hotly anticipated (and very expensive) CNN+ service shortly after it was released, the news network will introduce a new streaming product this fall that packages live and on-demand programming.

Mark Thompson, the company’s chief executive, told employees about the service in a town-hall meeting on Tuesday afternoon. Some of the details about the service remain unclear, including pricing and an exact release date. But Mr. Thompson said the new service would be tied to the company’s recently introduced subscription product, which gives paying members unlimited access to articles posted on CNN.com.

CNN is also taking pains to avoid alienating its most valuable customers: traditional cable distributors. Those customers will have free access to CNN’s streaming service.

Alex MacCallum, CNN’s executive vice president of digital products and services, said in a statement that bundling the video service with CNN’s existing digital subscription product will allow “audiences to get the most out of CNN in one seamless and simple way.”

Like most other news organizations, CNN is trying to find new sources of revenue as its traditional business declines. Earlier this year, Mr. Thompson said in an interview that the company’s “future prospects will not be good,” if CNN does not follow its audiences to new platforms “with real conviction and scale.”

Mr. Thompson, who previously led a digital turnaround at The New York Times, has focused his attention on CNN’s digital business since he joined the company in 2023. Investments in the digital efforts are fueled, in part, by a $70 million investment from Warner Bros. Discovery, its parent company.

Mr. Thompson hired Ms. MacCallum, a former executive at The Times, to lead the network’s digital push, and is planning to add 200 digital-focused employees this year. The network laid off roughly 200 employees focused on its traditional TV operations earlier this year.

CNN’s new service won’t look like CNN+, its failed $300 million splashy foray into streaming that was stuffed with well-known news and entertainment personalities. The new service will be more stripped-down, resembling the network’s traditional cable experience, although not an exact replica. Subscribers will also have access to a library of original shows and documentaries.