In a high-stakes legal battle, US President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the implementation of a law that could ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, doesn’t sell it. The law, which is set to take effect on January 19, 2025, poses significant challenges for TikTok and its millions of users across the US, due to concerns about national security and data privacy linked to Chinese ownership.
Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court to grant him time after his inauguration on January 20 to "seek a negotiated resolution" to the TikTok dispute. While he did not take a firm stance on the constitutionality of the law, Trump expressed concerns that it raised "sweeping and troubling" implications for free speech. He highlighted the importance of giving the incoming administration space to negotiate a deal that could address both national security issues and the platform's operation in the US.
Trump emphasized that only he possesses the "dealmaking expertise, electoral mandate, and political will" necessary to negotiate a resolution that would allow TikTok to continue operating in the US while addressing the government’s national security concerns. He did not, however, provide details on what kind of deal he would pursue or the length of delay he needed for negotiations.
The case is being heard with urgency, as the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for January 10, 2025, just a few days before the law is due to take effect. This expedited timeline underscores the gravity of the case, which pits First Amendment rights—particularly those related to free speech—against national security interests.
TikTok and President Joe Biden’s administration have each filed their own arguments with the Supreme Court. The Biden administration, through the Justice Department, argues that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a serious national security threat. US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized that TikTok’s access to sensitive data from millions of Americans could potentially be used for covert influence operations by China.
On the other hand, TikTok has argued that Congress should consider alternatives to a ban. The company insists that banning speech, even when national security is involved, should be the last resort. TikTok contends that its users' free speech rights and the platform's value should be considered alongside national security concerns.
While Trump initially supported a potential TikTok ban during his presidency, his position has evolved in recent months. He has expressed a newfound "warm spot" for TikTok, noting that it helped mobilize young voters in the 2024 election. Trump’s meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at his Mar-a-Lago club, along with his recent discussions with Chew, reflect his more favorable outlook on the platform, despite the ongoing legal challenge.
As president, Trump would have the power to approve any potential divestment proposal if TikTok is forced to sell to a US company. During his first term, Trump suggested that TikTok could continue operating in the US if it were sold to an American firm, with the US government receiving a portion of the sale price for facilitating the transaction. This stance could influence the outcome of the case if he successfully navigates a deal post-inauguration.
Trump's filing on behalf of TikTok reflects his sympathy for the free speech arguments raised by the company and its users. He argued that the law could set a dangerous global precedent by allowing the government to shut down an entire social media platform based on concerns about "disfavored speech." The federal appeals court in Washington upheld the law on a 3-0 vote earlier this month, ruling that Congress and the president have significant authority when making national security determinations.
Conclusion
The legal battle over TikTok’s future in the US remains ongoing, with Trump seeking to delay the law's implementation to negotiate a resolution. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the platform, its millions of users, and the broader landscape of tech regulation and national security concerns in the United States.