On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to pause the implementation of a law that would ban TikTok in the U.S. starting Jan. 19 if the app is not sold by its Chinese parent company.
The court is due to hear arguments in the case on Jan. 10.
βPresident Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute,β wrote D. John Sauer, Trumpβs lawyer who is also the president-electβs pick for U.S. solicitor general. βInstead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Actβs deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case, thus permitting President Trumpβs incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case.β
Donald Trump wants to protect Americans from the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a very broad act that could allow Congress to shut down other platforms the congresspeople don’t like.
Warnings About the Bill
The law would require TikTokβs Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the platform to an American company or face a ban.
Matt Taibbi has an article atΒ Racket News on substack, which is available to everyone. He sounds the alarm over the βdangerousβ TikTok ban. The bill is titled theΒ Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.Β Taibbiβs concerns are about the free speech issue and the power we would give the Executive Branch β Joe Biden β if we allow this bill to go through.
Taibbi reminds everyone what happened with George Bushβs Patriot Act. The act lets the government pretty much do whatever it wants. This TikTok ban has the same potential.
The Fine Print
Youβll find the real issue in the fine print. There, the βtechnical assistanceβ the drafters of the bill reportedly received from the White House shines through.
Look particularly at the first highlighted portion and sections (i) and (ii) of (3)B:
As written, any βwebsite, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology applicationβ that is βdetermined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United Statesβ is covered.
Currently, the definition of βforeign adversaryβ includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.
The definition of βcontrolled,β meanwhile, turns out to be a word salad, applying to:
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
A βforeign adversary controlled application,β in other words, can be any company founded or run by someone living at the wrong foreign address or containing a small minority ownership stake. Or it can be any company run by someone βsubject to the directionβ of either of those entities. Or, itβs anything the president says it is. Vague enough?
As Newsweek reported, the bill was fast-tracked after a secret βintelligence community briefingβ of Congress led by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The magazine noted that if everything goes as planned, the bill will give Biden the authority to shut down an app used by 150 million Americans just in time for the November elections.