By: Samantha Morales
The legal issues surrounding the widely used and well-known app, TikTok, in the United States have included executive actions, legislative measures, and judicial decisions, all of which have echoed concerns over national security, data privacy, and the First Amendment. Although the topic has been buzzing as of late, worries over TikTok’s grasp on the American people started back in 2020, and has now resulted in significant legal and political developments in January 2025.
TikTok is a social media platform like many others, giving users a space to create, watch, share, and interact with videos made by others on the platform. The types of videos posted on the app are extremely diverse, including dance trends, personal “story times,” live videos, news clips, personal opinions, and anything else users wish to share. The app has taken off since its launch in 2017, with over 170 million users across the United states, and over one billion worldwide. The innerworkings of the app include an advanced algorithm, personally tailored to each user based on their interactions on and off the app.
In the United States, TikTok is operated by TikTok Inc., an American company based in California. However, the parent company of TikTok Inc. is ByteDance Ltd. ByteDance is a privately held company that conducts operations in China where they own, develop, and maintain the algorithm. The company also develops parts of the source code running the app, all while it is subject to Chinese laws requiring it to “‘assist or cooperate’ with the Chinese Government’s ‘intelligence work’ and to ensure the Chinese government has ‘the power to access and control private data.’”
Concerns about TikTok’s connections to China and the implications of ByteDance’s accumulation of American data trace back to 2020, when President Donald Trump expressed his initial apprehensions in Executive Order 13942. The order titled, “Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” highlighted TikTok’s national security threat and called for action. Trump explained that the spread of Chinese-owned and developed mobile apps threatened national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. To support his concerns, he cited the expansive data collection conducted by the app on all of its users, censorship of content by the Chinese Communist Party, and the promotion of disinformation. Thus, Trump called for aggressive action against TikTok’s owners and effectively set the stage for a potential ban unless ByteDance divested its U.S. operations.
President Trump claimed authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act to prohibit certain “transactions” involving TikTok’s parent company. However, he faced challenges, with federal courts enjoining the prohibitions before they had a chance to take effect, finding that they exceeded the Executive Branch’s authority under IEEPA. Just a few days later, Trump ordered ByteDance to divest its interests and rights in TikTok’s U.S. operations and American-user data. ByteDance and TikTok subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the order in the D.C. Circuit. Despite their challenges, however, the case was placed in abeyance to allow the Biden administration to review the issues and potentially negotiate a solution. Negotiations persisted throughout 2021 and 2022, but ultimately ByteDance could not finalize an agreement with Executive Branch Officials.
It was then when the legislative branch jumped in. In response to the ongoing concerns, Congress enacted the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) in April 2024. This legislation required ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations of TikTok by January 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban. The Act prohibits the distribution, maintenance, or updates of TikTok in the U.S. unless a qualified divestiture is completed. However, the Act does give the President the power to grant a one-time extension for up to 90 days if the President can demonstrate to Congress that certain steps toward qualified divestiture are well under way.
ByteDance challenged PAFACA, arguing that the forced divestiture violated the First Amendment rights of both the company and its users. After a loss for petitioners in the D.C. Circuit, the case, TikTok Inc. v. Garland, advanced to the Supreme Court. The Court recognized that “an effective ban on a social media platform with 170 million U. S. users certainly burdens those users’ expressive activity in a non-trivial way,” and applied First Amendment intermediate scrutiny in their analysis. The Court found that the act was facially content neutral, and that it advanced an important government interest “unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” The important government interest, the Court explained, related to “TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects,” posing valid national security concerns. TikTok’s deference to Congressional predictions, the nation’s history with China, and China’s ability to “compel TikTok to turn over user data for intelligence-gathering purposes” all support the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law.
Subsequently, on January 18, 2025, at around 10:00pm, the platform shutdown on devices across the United States, leaving users confused. A message appeared on the screen stating “Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” The message then directed users to leave the app, and there was no way to use the app once that message appeared on the screen. However, less than 12 hours later on January 19, 2025, TikTok began operating normally again. The following morning, the app displayed a new message, which said “Welcome back! Thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump’s efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.! You can continue to create, share, and discover all the things you love on TikTok.”
The following day, on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump, now sworn into office, signed an executive order granting a 75-day extension for TikTok to find a U.S. buyer. This move temporarily suspended the ban, allowing the app to remain operational while the Trump administration figures out the appropriate course forward, now wanting to balance the national security interests with the interest of the app’s U.S. users. The extension was intended to provide time for a potential deal that would address national security concerns by transferring ownership to an American entity.
There exist both rational and irrational aspects of the TikTok ban. On one hand, restricting high-ranking federal officials from using the app makes sense, considering the app’s location monitoring and extensive data collection that fuels the algorithm. It’s reasonable to limit potential security threats at the highest levels of government and military officials. However, does that justify banning the app entirely for all U.S. citizens? Many people argue that their personal data isn’t valuable enough to matter, and even if China has access to their cellular information, it doesn’t significantly impact their lives or the countries security. At the same time, there is a legitimate concern about TikTok’s ability to control narratives and influence political division through algorithmic curation. Yet, as a TikTok users may have noticed, no single agenda dominates the platform. The algorithm varies drastically from person to person—some people see primarily right-wing content, others left-wing, and some get a mix of the extremities with everything in between. What appears on your feed is largely based on your own engagement—whether that means watching a video in full, searching related content, sending clips to friends, or interacting with posts. Given that, is the fear of manipulation strong enough to justify a nationwide ban, or does it overlook the reality of the minimal implications from most people’s use? Selling it to a U.S. company may be realistic, however, especially considering that TikTok’s CEO attended Trumps inauguration, sitting beside the tech-billionaires likely to make it happen.
