Just two weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments over the future of TikTok, former President Donald Trump has filed an amicus brief asking the court to delay the January 19 deadline for the app to be sold or face a ban in the United States.
Trump’s request, filed by his nominee for solicitor general, John Sauer, calls for a stay on the sale deadline to allow the incoming administration to pursue a “negotiated resolution.” This approach, according to the filing, aims to address national security concerns while preserving the rights of millions of TikTok users in the U.S.
A Negotiated Resolution Over an Immediate Ban
The filing presents Trump as uniquely positioned to navigate this complex issue, describing him as someone with the “dealmaking expertise, electoral mandate, and political will” necessary to save TikTok while addressing national security concerns. Trump’s brief states that he opposes banning the app outright at this point, but it notably refrains from taking a stance on whether the sale mandate violates the First Amendment.
Instead, Sauer’s filing argues that pausing the deadline would give the administration time to negotiate a resolution that protects both national security and the First Amendment rights of TikTok’s more than 170 million U.S. users.
TikTok’s Battle Against a Nationwide Ban
TikTok, owned by the Chinese-based company ByteDance, has been under fire for alleged ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about potential risks to U.S. national security. Under a law signed by President Joe Biden, ByteDance must sell TikTok to a U.S. owner by January 19 or the app will be banned nationwide.
TikTok has challenged this law, arguing that such a drastic measure is unnecessary and that it violates the rights of millions of users. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court denied TikTok’s request for an emergency pause on the sale deadline, leaving the Supreme Court as the platform’s last hope for relief.
A Broader Debate Over Censorship and National Security
Trump’s amicus brief goes beyond TikTok, raising broader concerns about the precedent this case could set for social media censorship. Sauer invoked examples such as Brazil’s month-long ban of the platform X (formerly Twitter), the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and efforts to control COVID-19 misinformation to highlight the dangers of government overreach in regulating social media.
“This Court should be deeply concerned about setting a precedent that could create a slippery slope toward global government censorship of social media speech,” Sauer wrote. He emphasized that banning an entire platform with over 100 million users must be approached with extreme caution and not rushed through on an expedited basis.
A Skeptical View of National Security Officials
While acknowledging that TikTok’s ties to ByteDance may present legitimate security concerns, Sauer urged the court to critically evaluate claims made by national security officials. He cited instances where officials have allegedly coerced or pressured social media platforms into censoring disfavored content and viewpoints, framing these actions as a potential parallel to the TikTok case.
“There is a jarring parallel between the D.C. Circuit’s near-plenary deference to national security officials calling for social-media censorship, and the recent, well-documented history of federal officials’ extensive involvement in social-media censorship efforts directed at the speech of tens of millions of Americans,” Sauer wrote.
Trump’s Evolving Stance on TikTok
Trump’s involvement in the TikTok saga is notable given his history with the app. During his first term, Trump attempted to ban TikTok outright, citing national security concerns. However, he has since shifted his position, vowing during his 2024 presidential campaign to “save” the app while addressing security risks.
The Stakes
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on January 10, making this case a crucial test of how the U.S. government handles the intersection of technology, security, and free speech. For Trump and his legal team, the goal is to find a solution that protects national security without sacrificing the constitutional rights of TikTok users.
With the clock ticking toward the January 19 deadline, the decision to grant a stay could have far-reaching implications for both the future of TikTok and the broader debate over social media regulation. Whether through negotiation or legal challenge, this case could set the tone for how governments worldwide approach the regulation of powerful digital platforms.
