Trump Requests Supreme Court Delay on TikTok Ban as Biden Warns of National Security Threat

President-elect Donald Trump has called on the Supreme Court to delay a controversial TikTok ban set to take effect on January 19, the day before his inauguration.

In a legal brief filed Friday, Trump argued that a pause would allow his incoming administration to explore a negotiated resolution to address national security concerns while preserving Americans’ First Amendment rights. The Biden administration, however, has taken a hardline stance, urging the court to uphold the ban and warning of “grave” risks posed by TikTok’s Chinese ownership.

The TikTok ban, passed by Congress in April with bipartisan support, stems from concerns that its parent company, ByteDance, could share user data with the Chinese government or manipulate content to advance Beijing’s geopolitical agenda.

The law permits TikTok to operate in the U.S. only if it divests from Chinese ownership, leaving the president with the authority to determine whether such measures are sufficient. Biden’s administration argued in its brief that TikTok poses a serious threat, collecting data on millions of Americans and potentially being used as a tool for disinformation or social discord.

Trump’s brief, his first Supreme Court filing since the election, did not directly address the First Amendment implications of the case but requested a delay to avoid the immediate shutdown of TikTok, which he claimed would impact the free speech rights of 170 million American users.

Trump argued that the court should allow his administration to negotiate a solution that balances security concerns with First Amendment protections. This approach, he claimed, would avoid the need for the court to rule on the broader constitutional questions.

The debate over TikTok underscores the tension between national security and free speech. TikTok and its supporters, including advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Knight First Amendment Institute, argue that banning the platform sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship.

They emphasize that Congress should explore alternatives, such as requiring transparency about TikTok’s ownership, before resorting to a ban. TikTok called the government’s move “unprecedented,” warning it could disrupt Americans’ access to online content and stifle free expression.

While Trump has sent mixed signals about TikTok in the past, he recently vowed to “save” the platform and met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew earlier this month.

Chew reportedly spoke with Trump again on Friday after his Supreme Court filing. Trump’s approach marks a stark departure from his stance as president in 2020, when he signed an executive order to ban TikTok, a move later blocked by the courts.

Adding to the complexity, several former Trump administration officials, including ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, filed briefs supporting the Biden administration’s position.

Former Vice President Mike Pence’s advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom, also backed the ban, describing TikTok as “digital fentanyl” and a potential tool for foreign manipulation. They argued that the First Amendment should not protect a platform controlled by a foreign adversary.

The Supreme Court now faces a critical decision on whether to delay the ban. The case has drawn widespread attention, with dozens of briefs submitted on both sides of the issue.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently upheld the ban, citing national security interests, but TikTok has asked the Supreme Court to review the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 10.

Trump’s filing was prepared by D. John Sauer, whom Trump has announced as his nominee for solicitor general.

Sauer argued that delaying the ban would allow the incoming administration to address both security concerns and First Amendment implications without forcing the court to rule on the complex constitutional questions. The Biden administration, however, maintains that the risks posed by TikTok are too significant to ignore.

As the January 19 deadline looms, the Supreme Court’s decision will carry significant implications for national security, free speech, and the future of one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.