TikTok Faces US Ban Deadline: Will Biden Intervene Before the Ban Takes Effect?
The US Supreme Court has upheld a law mandating the ban of TikTok in the United States unless its China-based parent company, ByteDance, sells the platform by Sunday. TikTok contested the law, arguing it infringes on free speech protections for its 170 million US users.
However, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed this claim, leaving TikTok with the choice to find a suitable buyer or face removal from app stores and web hosting services. The Biden administration had previously argued that the app could expose sensitive user information to the Chinese government and manipulate content to favor Chinese political interests.
In its ruling, the court emphasized the app’s susceptibility to foreign control and its vast data collection practices, deeming these sufficient reasons for differential treatment under national security considerations. The justices acknowledged that new technologies with transformative capabilities, such as TikTok, pose unique challenges.
Responsibility for implementing the law now lies with the incoming administration of President Donald Trump, set to take office Monday. President Trump indicated he would decide on TikTok’s future soon. Meanwhile, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, attending Trump’s inauguration, expressed gratitude for the president’s willingness to collaborate and potentially maintain the app’s availability in the US.
Congressional and Legal Battles
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers supported the law, citing TikTok’s alleged ties to the Chinese government. ByteDance has consistently denied sharing user data with Beijing. The legislation, passed in April 2024, gave ByteDance until 19 January 2025 to divest its US operations. If no sale occurs, app providers like Apple and Google must halt downloads and updates, effectively ending the app’s usability over time.
TikTok argued that the law violated the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling supporting the statute. The justices emphasized the app’s significance as a platform for expression while underscoring national security concerns over its data practices and connections with a foreign adversary.
| Timeline of Key Events |
|---|
| 24 April 2024: Biden signs TikTok ban into law. |
| 7 May 2024: TikTok files a lawsuit to block the law. |
| 2 August 2024: US government sues TikTok over data issues. |
| 6 December 2024: Federal court upholds TikTok ban law. |
| 10 January 2025: Supreme Court hears arguments from TikTok and creators. |
| 17 January 2025: Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban law. |
| 19 January 2025: Deadline for TikTok to divest or face a ban. |
Impact on TikTok and Related Stakeholders
TikTok faces a potential shutdown in the U.S., pending further assurances from the incoming administration. Service providers that facilitate access to the app are particularly concerned about potential fines of up to $5,000 per affected user, a liability that could escalate to billions of dollars. Executives at TikTok have been cautious, fearing legal and financial repercussions if the ban is enforced.
A U.S. law enforcement official noted that the Department of Justice is unlikely to file lawsuits during the holiday weekend, giving stakeholders a temporary reprieve. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has assured users that the company is doing everything possible to maintain access to the app.
The law grants the president authority to enforce or delay the ban. Former President Donald Trump has indicated that he will ultimately decide the app’s fate, stating his decision-making power comes from Congress. He confirmed discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping, mentioning broader talks about TikTok and other issues.
The Biden administration has left the implementation of the ban to the incoming government, noting the lack of time to take effective action before the transition. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized the administration’s stance that TikTok can remain operational under American ownership or another arrangement addressing national security concerns.
TikTok’s Response and Impact
ByteDance’s Stance
ByteDance has refused to sell TikTok and plans to cease US operations unless there is a last-minute intervention. The app’s CEO described the ruling as a pivotal stand for free speech, stating that the platform’s unique role in public discourse should be preserved.
Creators Speak Out
Content creators shared concerns about the potential ban’s impact on their livelihoods. Many, like Drew Talbert and Kalani Smith, credited TikTok for life-changing opportunities, ranging from financial independence to rebuilding their lives. The looming shutdown has left them feeling abandoned by the government, which some say overlooks the app’s contribution to employment and creativity.
Broader Security Implications
US officials maintain the ban addresses valid national security concerns. Attorney General Merrick Garland highlighted that authoritarian regimes should not have unrestricted access to Americans’ data. Beijing, however, denied pressuring companies like TikTok to collect information and criticized the US decision as unjustified.
Political Dynamics and Next Steps
Trump’s Position and Shifts
President Trump’s remarks signal a shift from his earlier stance during his first term, when he also proposed banning TikTok via executive order. Recently, he described the platform as beneficial for engaging younger voters, hinting at a more conciliatory approach.
White House Comments
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated that TikTok must operate under American ownership or meet Congress’s national security demands. Acknowledging the tight timeline, she stated that enforcing the law would rest with Trump’s administration.
Read Also: KNEC Releases Withheld Lugulu Girls 2024 KCSE Results
The Road Ahead
With the Sunday deadline looming, TikTok’s future in the US remains uncertain. The platform’s vast user base, content creators, and employees await clarity on the potential sale or an outright shutdown.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed reservations about the level of scrutiny applied to the law, suggesting that a stricter review may have been more appropriate. However, he agreed that the government met its burden under national security concerns.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, asserted that the law clearly implicates First Amendment rights and criticized the court’s decision to bypass this conclusion.
The case underscores the legal complexities of regulating technologies that blend free speech and national security in the digital age.
