The fate of TikTok in the United States hangs in the balance as a forced divestiture deadline of January 19, 2025, approaches under a law passed last April with bipartisan support. At issue is whether ByteDance can be forced to sell its U.S. operations over national security concerns.
The fate of TikTok in the United States hangs in the balance as a forced divestiture deadline of January 19, 2025, approaches under a law passed last April with bipartisan support. At the heart of the controversy is whether ByteDance—a “foreign corporation,” in the words of liberal Justice Elena Kagan—can be compelled to sell its U.S. operations to address national security concerns. During the January 10 Supreme Court hearing, Kagan evoked a historical parallel by raising a Cold War-inspired hypothetical, asking if the government could have similarly forced the American Communist Party to break from the Soviet Union in the 1950s.
“That’s exactly what they thought about Communist Party speech in the 1950s,”
she noted, tying potential foreign influence on TikTok’s content moderation to past anxieties over Soviet propaganda.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the measure, warning that foreign ownership could permit Chinese authorities to manipulate TikTok’s massive data trove and covertly sway public opinion. Pointing out how the app’s algorithm shapes political discourse for its 170 million American users, Prelogar stressed the potential for espionage and blackmail:
“The national security harm arises from the very fact of a foreign adversary’s capacity to secretly manipulate the platform to advance its geopolitical goals in whatever form that covert operation might take.”
ByteDance’s lead counsel, Noel Francisco, countered with his own hypothetical—that Congress could not legally force Jeff Bezos to sell The Washington Post even if the Chinese government held his family hostage to control the paper’s content. In Francisco’s view, compelling a divestiture at TikTok undermines core free speech protections by targeting the platform’s editorial decisions—its algorithmic recommendations.
Adding to the uncertainty, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to pause or renegotiate the ban if he assumes office the day after the January 19 deadline. Yet critics worry that Apple, Google, and other tech giants may still remove TikTok from app stores to comply with the law, despite any informal assurances from the White House. As the Supreme Court deliberates, TikTok’s future underscores broader tensions between Washington and Beijing, hinting at a new “Cold War” dynamic where global competition over technology and data heightens the stakes for free expression, business operations, and national security alike.
During oral arguments, the justices questioned whether banning TikTok violates free speech or legitimately addresses potential foreign meddling. TikTok insists no covert data misuse exists, while Congress highlights Chinese ties and national security concerns.
Christopher Wray resigns as FBI Director, signaling a shift under Trump. With Kash Patel as a potential successor, concerns grow over the FBI's independence and its impact on cybersecurity, financial crimes, and corporate governance.
Australia's government plans to make tech giants pay for local journalism, leveling the media playing field. Meanwhile, Meta faces global outages, sparking reliability concerns, and unveils nuclear ambitions with a $10B AI supercluster in Louisiana. Big tech is reshaping energy and media landscapes.
Chinese firms may ramp up U.S. solar panel production to offset higher tariffs anticipated under Trump's 2025 presidency. Despite policy shifts, strong U.S. solar demand drives adaptation as global clean energy competition intensifies.
