U.S. Circuit Judges’ Benchmark on TikTok and Its Applicability to the Electronic Communications Technology & Privacy Protection Act

The statute was upheld by a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Biden administration has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its connections to China. Chinese authorities can order ByteDance to give information to U.S. patrons or use the platform to suppress that information.

In an amicus brief filed to the court, Trump says he “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office,” and that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform.”

Trump is asking for the bill’s January 19th deadline to be stayed, because his deal would obviate the need for the Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here.

He offers no details on what said deal would look like, though it would likely have to involve ByteDance selling a signification portion of its ownership in TikTok to an American company.

Trump tried to ban the app in his first term in office because of national security concerns. He joined the app during his 2024 presidential campaign and his team used it to connect with younger voters, especially male voters, by pushing content that was often macho and aimed at going viral.

In their brief to the Supreme Court on Friday, attorneys for TikTok and its parent company ByteDance argued the federal appeals court erred in its ruling and based its decision on “alleged ‘risks’ that China could exercise control” over TikTok’s U.S. platform by pressuring its foreign affiliates.

According to TikTok, the U.S. government said there is no evidence China has ever attempted to do so.

Reply to Comment on Revisited Mueller’s Report on the Black Hole Divergences” by Donald J. Sauer

President Trump does not have a position on the underlying merits of the dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case and was written by D. John Sauer, Trump’s choice for solicitor general.