WASHINGTON (AP) — Following the ban on TikTok in the United States earlier this year, President Donald Trump provided the platform with a temporary solution, ignoring a law passed by Congress and upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, which indicated that the ban was essential for national security.
The Republican president’s executive actions have ignited over 130 lawsuits in just a bit more than two months of his administration, yet this particular issue barely raised an eyebrow. None of these lawsuits contest his temporary suspension of the 2024 law that prohibited the widely used social video application after the deadline for its sale by ByteDance, the Chinese parent company.
Hardly any of the 431 members of the House of Representatives and Senate who voted for the law have voiced any concerns.
Despite a bipartisan agreement on the national security risks associated with TikTok’s connections to China, “it feels as if nothing ever occurred,” remarked Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute.
TikTok remains active, pleasing 170 million users in the U.S.
TikTok continues to operate, much to the satisfaction of its 170 million users in the U.S., and tech giants Apple, Google, and Oracle have been convinced to keep supporting the app, with the assurance that Trump’s Justice Department will not pursue substantial fines against them.
Trump announced he was halting the law for 75 days, although no part of the regulation seems to permit such an action, allowing ByteDance another opportunity to seek a U.S. buyer. The president has indicated he might prolong the pause but has also expressed confidence in securing a deal by Saturday, when the reprieve concludes. He is scheduled to meet with aides on Wednesday regarding potential buyers for TikTok, with Oracle and the investment firm Blackstone among the prospective investors.
This decision came after a swiftly executed free-speech challenge by TikTok and its users, culminating in a unanimous Supreme Court decision days before Trump’s inauguration, where the justices concluded that national security considerations took precedence over their typical responsiveness to First Amendment arguments.
The court extensively examined the risk of China accessing large amounts of TikTok users’ data, potentially allowing them to monitor the locations of federal employees and contractors.
“The evidence presented to us indicates that TikTok collects data from its users as well as from millions who do not consent to share their information,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a brief separate opinion. “As noted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, TikTok can reach ‘any data’ contained in a consenting user’s ‘contact list’ — including names, pictures, and other private information concerning non-consenting third parties.”
TikTok, which operates out of Singapore and Los Angeles, claims it prioritizes user safety, while China’s Foreign Ministry has stated that the Chinese government has never requested, nor will it, companies to “collect or provide data, information, or intelligence” stored in other nations.
Trump’s stance on TikTok has changed over time
The day after the ruling, TikTok became inaccessible for U.S. users, but returned online after Trump promised to delay the ban.
The president’s perspective has shifted throughout his tenure. During his initial term, he attempted to prohibit TikTok on national security grounds via an executive order, but federal courts stayed that order. His administration then sought to negotiate a sale of the platform, which did not pan out.
Diverging from his earlier position during his 2024 campaign, Trump stated he would “save TikTok,” crediting the platform with helping him gain traction among younger voters. He issued the 75-day halt on his first day back in office.
The law accommodates a single 90-day extension, provided there’s a proposal in play and a formal notification to Congress.
According to Alan Rozenshtein, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota, Trump’s actions so far counter the law. “The law does not allow for the kind of ‘extension’ that Donald Trump has announced,” Rozenshtein stated.
Nonetheless, both he and Kreps admitted that a legal challenge or other opposition appears unlikely.
“Who’s the constituency? You have 170 million Americans using the app, and they are generally pleased to see it remain available to them,” Kreps noted.
Additionally, establishing the legal right or standing to initiate a lawsuit might be difficult, Rozenshtein noted. A plaintiff would need to demonstrate harm caused by the enforcement delay of the law.
More importantly, he said, the TikTok executive order is an early “indication of the Trump administration’s disregard for the rule of law.”
While Trump has instructed the Justice Department not to pursue fines against the tech companies, they may be taking a legal risk, according to Democratic lawmakers who oppose the TikTok ban while also criticizing Trump’s actions. A future administration might have its reasons to pursue legal actions against Apple, Google, and Oracle, they stated in a letter to Trump last week.
Democratic Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts pointed out that companies could be liable for hundreds of billions of dollars for enabling TikTok’s operations since the law’s effective date of January 19.
Tech companies initially faced uncertain legal guidelines
The companies involved admitted their legally ambiguous situation following Trump’s order. Oracle continued providing cloud services to TikTok, the senators noted, while “Apple and Google, on the other hand, initially decided against reinstating TikTok in their app stores.”
However, these companies changed their decisions only after obtaining written assurances from the Justice Department.
Democrats have proposed amending the law to push the sale deadline to October. Other opponents of the TikTok ban are advocating for a complete repeal.
Among the few ban supporters to voice concerns is Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Michigan, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
However, rather than confront Trump, Moolenaar has targeted his criticism at ByteDance and its connections with the Chinese Communist Party. “If ByteDance remains involved in any capacity, the deal is illegal — plain and simple,” Moolenaar remarked during a TikTok event on Capitol Hill last week.
Several prospective bidders have emerged.
Perplexity AI presented ByteDance with a merger proposal in January that would integrate Perplexity’s business with TikTok’s U.S. operations.
Another option is a consortium led by billionaire Frank McCourt, which has recently enlisted Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian as a strategic adviser. Investors in this consortium previously claimed to have offered ByteDance $20 billion in cash for TikTok’s U.S. platform. They intended to redesign the popular app utilizing blockchain technology to provide users with greater control over their online data.
Jesse Tinsley, founder of the payroll firm Employer.com, also organized a consortium that included the CEO of the video game platform Roblox and offered ByteDance over $30 billion for TikTok.
___
Parvini reported from Los Angeles.
