President-elect Donald Trump has stepped onto the front lines of the battle over TikTok, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to delay the implementation of legislation poised to ban the popular social media app. This push for postponement touches on complex issues of national security and freedom of speech, prompting widespread attention as the court prepares to hear arguments on January 10.
The law, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, directs TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell its American operations or face a ban effective January 19, one day before Trump is set to take office. With this looming deadline, Trump’s amicus brief, filed with the Supreme Court, reflects his administration’s desire to secure time to negotiate what he terms a “political resolution.”
Trump's request marks a significant shift from his previous hardline stance on TikTok during his presidency when he attempted to force the sale of the app due to concerns about Chinese control and user data. Now, he maintains, "President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform..." These words, articulated by Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer, suggest the president-elect wishes to smooth over tensions between the app's operations and national security worries.
With over 170 million users located within the United States, the stakes are high. Many small businesses rely on TikTok for their marketing and outreach efforts, making the threat of a ban particularly alarming. Critics of the ban argue it risks infringing on First Amendment rights, branding the law as akin to censorship.” This point was echoed by TikTok’s legal arguments, stating, "It would be highly inappropriate to punish 170 million Americans who use the platform..." reflecting their assertion of being free from Chinese influence.
Trump's tone has also changed since December, when he expressed having a “warm spot” for the app, particularly recalling his successes during the electoral campaign, as he stated he received billions of views on TikTok. At the same time, he managed to cultivate relationships with TikTok executives, meeting with CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort just before the law's deadline. Trump's capability to negotiate arose from these discussions, emphasizing his commitment to pursue the matter amicably.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, stands firm on its position, arguing through its amicus brief, submitted alongside TikTok’s, about the existing national security threats posed by TikTok's ties to Chinese ownership. They echo concerns of data privacy and content manipulation, claims supported by many U.S. lawmakers who believe the app could potentially serve as a vehicle for foreign influence and intelligence harvesting. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen even led 22 other state attorneys general to file their own motion with the Court, urging its support for the law against TikTok.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chimed in against Trump's request, asserting the court should dismiss TikTok's appeal as nothing more than delaying tactics. He anticipated TikTok's aim to seek more favorable treatment from the incoming administration. His counsel Michael A. Fragoso dismissed claims related to First Amendment rights, reinforcing the narrative of urgency surrounding the ban.
With oral arguments set for January 10, time is running out. The Supreme Court faces the question of whether the law could infringe upon the free speech rights of Americans. If the Court rule against TikTok, the imminent ban could send ripples across the economy, particularly impacting smaller businesses thriving on the platform. Conversely, if the Court sides with TikTok, there may be renewed discussions on regulating tech and foreign ownership of such widely used apps.
Trump's entry to negotiate has undoubtedly changed the dynamics of this narrative. From threatening bans to attempts at negotiation, the conversation around TikTok now centers on the potential for common ground, balancing national security concerns with preserving the freedoms of millions of American users. The outcome, expected shortly after the court hearings, could redefine the future of the social media app and its role within American society.
