Donald Trump now appears poised to step back from his threat to ban TikTok in the United States, for fear that such a ban would give an unfair advantage to U.S.-based alternatives, including Facebook-a platform with which he has publicly tussled on several occasions. This new development has inflamed the national debate pitting concerns about national security against the interests of millions of users who use TikTok.
TikTok has been enveloped in national security and data privacy concerns for years, as U.S. officials expressed deep concern about the potential for ByteDance, a Chinese company, to be strong-armed by the Chinese government into providing access to sensitive user data. Those concerns led to a Trump executive order in 2020 that would have banned TikTok unless ByteDance divested its U.S. operations.
In April 2024, Congress approved a legislative ban that compels ByteDance to divest TikTok to a U.S.-based company no later than January 2025 or face an overall ban in the country. This decision came months after federal and state-level bans on the use of TikTok from government devices, which had been trying to restrict possible Chinese influence on American data.
An onetime champion of banning the service, Trump now styles himself as its protector. He has said publicly that a ban on TikTok could have the unintended consequence of aiding its social media rivals, such as Facebook, which he considers already too powerful in shaping American media and politics. He has even commandeered the slogan “Save TikTok,” working to leverage the service as part of his outreach efforts to younger voters.
The about-face came reportedly after a sit-down with the billionaire donor of the Republicans, Jeff Yass, who holds a financial stake over TikTok worth hundreds of millions. The meeting, along with the urging of Trump’s advisers, such as Kellyanne Conway-who said the platform has taken hold among huge swathes of young Americans-apparently sealed his position.
With the deadline of January 2025 in full view, Trump could take various avenues to try to impede or even appeal the legislation. He could ask for an extension of the deadline or seek Congress’ intervention in voidance of the requirement for divesting ByteDance. But again, these requests will likely meet opposition of Apple and Google, for example, who will then need to take the enforcement of a ban of TikTok in their app stores if the sale over the deadline is missed.
The maneuvering by Trump could be resisted not only by the tech industry but also from members of his own camp who had supported such a ban in the first place.
Yet, the impact of the Trump flip has been mixed. Allies argue that in defending TikTok, he is protecting a platform treasured by millions of Americans, taking the will of the people over concerns about security. Largely, they view Trump’s defense as an avenue to 180 million U.S. active users on TikTok every month-including some in that younger demographic using it more for news and socializing.
By contrast, the critics argue that Trump’s stance disregards an original national security concern which ignited the bipartisan legislation in the first place. To some, his meeting with Jeff Yass and opposing Facebook because of it are potential conflicts of interest to undermine the original predicates-safeguarding U.S. user data from foreign influence.
Senator Marco Rubio, one of those who supported the bill, believes the app is a “threat to national security” because of its ownership by the Chinese Communist Party. Last year, for example, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed an executive order banning TikTok use on state government devices. Representative Mike Waltz lent bipartisan support for the forced sale over concerns that TikTok presents risks.
Thus, the issue highlights how tricky it is to balance national security against public interest in light of technological giants in American life as Trump prepares for a possible courtroom battle over the TikTok ban. The US Court of Appeals is set to announce its ruling on the appeal of TikTok by December 6. Of course, a Supreme Court takedown could happen if either side decided to escalate the case further.
