In a landmark hearing on Friday, the US Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold legislation that could effectively ban TikTok in the United States unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance sells the platform by January 19.
During nearly three hours of arguments, the nine justices repeatedly focused on national security implications while weighing free speech concerns regarding the popular social media app used by over 170 million Americans.
Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted ByteDance's obligations under Chinese law, questioning whether the Court should "ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government."
The legislation, passed with broad bipartisan support, requires ByteDance to divest TikTok's US operations or cease activities. If no sale occurs, tech companies like Apple and Google would be required to remove TikTok from their app stores.
TikTok's attorney Noel Francisco argued the ban would violate First Amendment protections, stating "the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech." Platform creators emphasized their right to choose their preferred publishing platform.
Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth Prelogar countered that Beijing "could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States," citing concerns about user data collection and potential surveillance capabilities.
President-elect Donald Trump, who previously threatened to ban TikTok during his first term, now opposes the ban and has requested the Court delay its decision until his return to office to pursue a "political solution."
The Court must decide quickly, as the January 19 deadline approaches. While ByteDance maintains it will not sell the platform, TikTok's lawyers warn the app would "go dark" without Court intervention.
Outside the courthouse, content creators expressed concerns about the ban's impact on their livelihoods. Creator Chloe Joy Sexton told reporters the ban would place many users in "true financial jeopardy" and destroy both businesses and communities built on the platform.
The case represents a critical juncture in US-China technology relations and could set precedent for future regulation of foreign-owned social media platforms operating in America.