SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tiktok
Democrats Set Up Trump to 'Save' TikTok After His Effort to Ban It
"The Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Jan 19, 2025
After starting Sunday with a Truth Social post declaring "SAVE TIKTOK!" U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced plans for an executive order delaying a nationwide ban on the global video-sharing platform—which some political observers framed as a "win" for the Republican that was made possible by Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Trump actually kicked off efforts to force TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest with an August 2020 executive order, citing national security concerns. Three months later, he lost an election to Democratic President Joe Biden, who ultimately reversed the order. However, Biden then signed the legislation currently impeding the platform's availability in the United States.
"Congratulations, Democrats," said Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, as the platform began informing U.S. users that it was no longer available late Saturday. "This could've been avoided had you listened to progressives last year when this bill was being forced through Congress."
U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) last March
led a bipartisan coalition that introduced a bill targeting TikTok's parent company—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—in the House of Representatives, where it swiftly approved in a 352-65 vote.
A version of the bill—which forces ByteDance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company or face a U.S. ban—ultimately passed both chambers with bipartisan support as a rider to a $95 billion military assistance package for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as it waged a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza. Biden signed it in April.
The resulting legal battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Friday unanimously upheld the law, "giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of 'national security' will trump our constitutional rights," in the words of ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey.
The court's decision meant TikTok would "go dark" on Sunday without action from Biden, who declined to give ByteDance a 90-day extension to sell or accept the ban, despite pressure from First Amendment advocates like the ACLU, the platform's 170 million American users—including content creators and small businesses facing financial impacts—and some lawmakers.
In a Friday statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
pointed to Trump's Monday inauguration, saying that "given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration."
Late Saturday, TikTok users in the United States began seeing a pop-up message that the platform was unavailable, stating: "A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
In response to former Obama administration staffer and podcaster Tommy Vietor calling TikTok's message an advertisement from the Chinese Communist Party, leftist political commentator Hasan Piker highlighted Trump's opportunity to restore access to the platform, saying that "the Democrats handed him the easiest w of all time if he's smart enough to seize it."
Others were also critical of the Democratic Party—which is wrapped up in debates over how to move forward from devastating electoral losses in November—with independent journalist Ken Klippenstein saying that "this reminds me of when Trump put his name on the stimulus checks but Biden didn't. Historic own goal by the Democrats here."
Jacobin podcast host Daniel Denvir similarly said on X—the platform owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person—that "the Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Lynese Wallace—who was the chief of staff for former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a progressive who opposed the law—said that "the TikTok ban was always bad policy and bad politics. Let's not forget it was folded into a $95 billion foreign aid package passed in the last Congress—and has since paved way for Trump to now 'save' it, despite his own support for a ban during his first term. So dumb."
Seizing the opportunity, Trump said Sunday on his Truth social media platform that "I'm asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order."
Although Trump can't take action before he is sworn in, he continued:
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.
By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
Responding with a statement on X, TikTok said that "in agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties [for] providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive. It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."
Even before Trump's post, Musk—who is expected to co-lead a presidential advisory commission—said on X that "I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but X is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change."
ByteDance's Chinese version of TikTok, called Douyin, was introduced in China in September 2016. The New York Timesreported last April that "TikTok has more users on its platform, but Douyin is ByteDance's cash cow. Roughly 80% of ByteDance's $54 billion revenue in the first half of [2023] came from China."
Critics of bipartisan efforts to ban TikTok in the United States have blasted lawmakers for their priorities throughout the process.
"America: Where it's OK to ban TikTok, books, and abortions, but not OK to ban assault weapons, bombs for genocides, or student debt," said Warren Gunnels, Democratic staff director for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the TikTok legislation.
Just hours ahead of a cease-fire taking effect in Gaza, Turner, who co-chaired Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, also emphasized that "they really banned TikTok before they banned sending weapons to Israel during a genocide."
"If Congress actually gave a damn about our data privacy," she added, "they would've passed a sweeping data privacy bill, not a bill targeting TikTok."
In a Sunday email to supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—who also voted against the law—agreed, stressing that "the answer is not just playing endless whack-a-mole with apps."
"We should have real privacy legislation in the United States," she said. "We should help people have greater agency over their personal information so that they're not being spied on all the time, whether it's a domestic company or a foreign company."
"To which, of course, Big Tech and their lobbies are going to fight against," she warned. "So they just target an
app instead of targeting the problem."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The TikTok Ban Is Discriminatory and Unlawful. Here’s Why.
What Congress is telling the world is that being a person or company that simply has origins in Asia is enough to be labeled a national security threat—no evidence required. That is racial profiling and an affront to the Constitution.
Jan 17, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s wrongheaded decision to ban TikTok in a unanimous decision. The ban on TikTok is set to take effect on Sunday January 19, 2025.
Ahead of this misguided ruling, 15 racial justice nonprofits submitted an emergency filing to the Supreme Court, explaining how the TikTok ban violates the rights of 170 million U.S. users and echoes a disgraceful history of anti-Asian racism.
It is no secret that our government wrongfully uses “national security” as a weapon against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Stop AAPI Hate’s research highlights how the government routinely scapegoats our communities for economic downturns, public health crises, and national security threats—often without any evidence.
When our government engages in anti-Asian racial profiling and biased enforcement, it encourages everyday people to do the same.
In the case of TikTok, the government claims that a ban is necessary to protect U.S. national security against China. However, the government also filed an affidavit in open court, signed by a senior U.S. national security official, stating there is “no information” that China had ever tried to use TikTok for nefarious purposes in the United States.
In other words, what Congress is telling the world is that being a person or company that simply has origins in Asia is enough to be labeled a national security threat—no evidence required.
That is racial profiling, plain and simple. And it is an affront to the Constitution.
It is disappointing, though unsurprising, that our government is targeting Asian American communities solely because of our race and national origins. Since our nation’s founding, our government has repeatedly trampled on the rights of Asians, Asian Americans, and other minority groups by relying on so-called “national security” concerns as a basis for outright racial discrimination.
Take, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese American incarceration during World War II, and government-sanctioned racial profiling and surveillance of innocent Muslim communities following the 9/11 attacks. More recently, we saw the China Initiative, a Department of Justice operation from 2018 to 2022 that unjustly targeted Chinese and Chinese American academics, ruined careers and livelihoods, and chilled scientific research.
Every time the government insisted that such laws or programs targeting Asian Americans were necessary, it reinforced the pernicious “perpetual foreigner” stereotype or the idea that all Asian people in America are inherently suspicious and disloyal to the United States based on our ancestry, skin color, or religious faith.
Those laws and programs were based on fearmongering and scapegoating. All three branches of government—the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court—eventually admitted that Japanese American incarceration violated the Constitution. Both the House and the Senate officially apologized for the Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory laws. And the DOJ eventually shut down the China Initiative, acknowledging it perpetuated a discriminatory double standard against people with any ties to China, though President-elect Donald Trump wants to revive it.
Our government never seems to learn and instead continues to pass laws motivated by anti-Asian prejudice, like this TikTok ban.
The TikTok ban has real human costs. The ban will silence 170 million U.S. users, including communities like ours that rely on TikTok to build solidarity, share valuable information, practice their faith, and engage in free expression.
But what worries us even more is how the TikTok ban fuels hateful rhetoric and actions against Asian Americans. It is clear that Congress targeted TikTok because the company is Chinese. Other social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube collect vast amounts of user data and have had major privacy and security issues—yet the government is not applying the same level of scrutiny on those companies.
When our government engages in anti-Asian racial profiling and biased enforcement, it encourages everyday people to do the same. We saw this exact ripple effect of hate during the Covid-19 pandemic.
At the start of the pandemic, then-President Trump spewed racist, anti-Asian rhetoric blaming Chinese people for the virus, fueling a torrent of hate against AAPI communities. In fact, from 2020 to 2022, Stop AAPI Hate received over 2,000 reports of hate acts in which offenders mimicked Trump’s language. His rhetoric emboldened people to spit racist vitriol at our community members as we shopped for groceries, dropped our kids off at school, and took the bus to work. They shouted that we were diseased and told us to go back to our country. Since our founding in March 2020, we have received over 12,000 reports of anti-AAPI hate acts from across the country—and we know racism and discrimination increase when politicians target our communities.
That’s why AAPI communities must tell our leaders that we disagree with the TikTok ban. This decision is not only an affront to our civil liberties and free speech, it is also an affront to our safety. We need leaders who will defend our rights and safety—not strip it away.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Major Blow to Freedom of Expression': US Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban
One ACLU campaigner blasted the justices for "giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like."
Jan 17, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law banning TikTok if its Chinese parent company does not sell the popular social media app by Sunday.
The justices ruled in TikTok v. Garland, an unsigned opinion, that "Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok's data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."
"The problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional," the high court wrote. "Speaking with and in favor of a foreign adversary is one thing. Allowing a foreign adversary to spy on Americans is another."
President Joe Biden
signed legislation last April forcing ByteDance, which owns TikTok, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within a year or face a nationwide ban. Proponents of the ban cited national security concerns, while digital rights and free speech defenders condemned the law.
Approximately 170 million Americans use TikTok, which is especially popular with younger people and small-to-medium-sized businesses, and contributes tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
The ACLU—which this week calledTikTok v. Garland "one of the most important First Amendment cases of our time"—condemned Friday's decision as "a major blow to freedom of expression online."
"The Supreme Court's ruling is incredibly disappointing, allowing the government to shut down an entire platform and the free speech rights of so many based on fear-mongering and speculation," ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey said in a statement.
"By refusing to block this ban, the Supreme Court is giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of 'national security' will trump our constitutional rights," Toomey added.
The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said in response to Friday's ruling, "We are deeply disappointed that the court failed to require the strict First Amendment scrutiny required in a case like this, which would've led to the inescapable conclusion that the government's desire to prevent potential future harm had to be rejected as infringing millions of Americans' constitutionally protected free speech."
"We are disappointed to see the court sweep past the undisputed content-based justification for the law—to control what speech Americans see and share with each other—and rule only based on the shaky data privacy concerns," EFF added.
The Biden administration
said Friday that it would leave enforcement of any ban up to the incoming Trump administration.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Republican U.S President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office next week, is weighing an executive order to suspend enforcement of the ban for 60-90 days.
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who earlier this week introduced a bill to delay ByteDance's sale deadline until October, said Friday: "I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the TikTok ban. I am not done fighting to pass my 270-day extension. We need more time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular