President Trump Asks Supreme Court to Delay TikTok Ban

President Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to delay the TikTok 'ban' set to take effect on January 19, 2025.

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled against ByteDance's challenge to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This legislation requires ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok by January 19, 2025.

ByteDance appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case.


In a filing as amicus curiae supporting neither side, President Trump states that he takes no position on the underlying merits of the dispute. Rather, he requests that the Court consider staying the Act's January 19, 2025 deadline for divestment while it deliberates on the merits of the case, thereby allowing his incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution.

Here is the introduction to the President's argument:

-----
President Donald J. Trump ("President Trump") is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America. On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States' national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions. This case presents an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other. As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means.

President Trump also has a unique interest in the First Amendment issues raised in this case. Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans—including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. President Trump is uniquely situated to vindicate these interests because "the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983).


Moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok's importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including core political speech. Indeed, President Trump and his rival both used TikTok to connect with voters during the recent Presidential election campaign, with President Trump doing so much more effectively. As this Court instructs, the First Amendment's "constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 162 (2014) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)).

Further, President Trump is the founder of another resoundingly successful social-media platform, Truth Social. This gives him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted to be exercised in this case—the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans, based in large part on concerns about disfavored content on that platform. President Trump is keenly aware of the historic dangers presented by such a precedent. For example, shortly after the Act was passed, Brazil banned the social-media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) for more than a month, based in large part on that government's disfavor of political speech on X. See, e.g., Brazil's Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Social Media Site X, CBS NEWS (Oct. 8, 2024).

In light of these interests—including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States' national security and foreign policy—President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office. On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social, "FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!"

Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged. See, e.g., Executive Order No. 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020); Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd., 85 Fed. Reg. 51297, 51297 (Aug. 14, 2020). Indeed, President Trump's first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor.

The 270-day deadline imposed by the Act expires on January 19, 2025—one day before President Trump will assume Office as the 47th President of the United States. This unfortunate timing interferes with President Trump's ability to manage the United States' foreign policy and to pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social-media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million Americans to exercise their core First Amendment rights. The Act imposes the timing constraint, moreover, without specifying any compelling government interest in that particular deadline. In fact, the Act itself contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline under certain specified circumstances. Pet.App.97a, § 2(a)(3)(A)-(C).

President Trump, therefore, has a compelling interest as the incoming embodiment of the Executive Branch in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to allow his incoming Administration the opportunity to seek a negotiated resolution of these questions. If successful, such a resolution would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis.
-----

Please download the iClarified app or follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS for updates.