Trump Fights Back: Opposes TikTok Ban at Supreme Court Amid Deal Push

President-elect Donald Trump has filed an amicus brief requesting the Supreme Court to pause a potential TikTok ban. This delay would allow him to negotiate a deal that could avert a nationwide shutdown of the popular social media app.

Trump’s stance is a departure from his 2020 executive order, which aimed to ban TikTok due to national security concerns stemming from its Chinese ownership. His attorney noted in the brief that Trump opposes the ban and prefers political negotiations to resolve existing issues once he assumes office.

With 14.7 million followers on TikTok, Trump argues that his engagement on the platform contributed to his presidential victory. He previously encouraged Americans who wished to save TikTok to vote for him in a post on Truth Social.

The Supreme Court is working to expedite hearings on the matter before a bipartisan law requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest by January 19 takes effect. In his brief, Trump expressed the need for the Court to consider delaying statutory deadlines to facilitate a thorough review of complex issues.

In a rare bipartisan initiative this year, lawmakers have mandated ByteDance to divest its ownership or face a ban, citing national security risks. This law is part of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, barring foreign adversaries from controlling social media platforms.

TikTok has sought legal reprieve by filing a constitutional challenge against the proposed ban. The company contends that silencing the voices of its 170 million American users constitutes a significant violation of the First Amendment. TikTok also argues that its U.S. subsidiary effectively safeguards user data from the Chinese government.

Despite TikTok’s efforts, the D.C. Circuit found that while the law may restrict free speech, it is constitutional due to the government’s compelling interest in national security. Meanwhile, advocates for First Amendment rights assert that restricting access to foreign speech is unconstitutional.

The Knight First Amendment Institute highlighted that such restrictions echo tactics used by authoritarian regimes to control information, citing examples from countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. They warned against equating the ban on TikTok to similar measures in nations lacking commitment to free expression.

The Biden administration supports the position that prohibitions against foreign control of social media do not violate the First Amendment. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloar emphasized that ByteDance, as a foreign entity, does not possess First Amendment rights and that the law is designed to target specific security concerns rather than infringe upon constitutional freedoms.

Lawmakers, including Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, have stated that their assessments of TikTok stem from decades of intelligence reports and classified briefings, which raise alarms about the app’s risks. They point to China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which obligates companies like ByteDance to cooperate with government intelligence operations.

Allegations have also emerged regarding TikTok’s potential use by the Chinese Communist Party to surveil U.S. citizens, including pro-democracy activists and journalists. Groups such as the Campaign for Uyghurs and the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong have highlighted the app’s role in facilitating government oppression and human rights violations against ethnic minorities.

Unlikely alliances have formed in the debate, including a conservative advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, which has labeled TikTok as “digital fentanyl.” They argue that the First Amendment should not empower foreign governments to manipulate discourse in the United States.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on January 10, the future of TikTok in the U.S. remains uncertain amid a complex interplay of national security, constitutional rights, and political maneuvering.