Trump Extension Keeps TikTok in Deadlock

The Supreme Court recently upheld Congress' imposed sale of TikTok from parent company ByteDance to an American company. Yet TikTok's legal saga is still not over. President Trump has delayed Congress' deadline, throwing doubt (yet again) on TikTok's future.
Due to TikTok's continued and soaring popularity, this is a highly-tracked legal drama. According to the Pew Research Center, Americans are increasingly using TikTok, with a notable rise in its user base from 21% to 33% of U.S. adults between 2021 and 2023. Younger adults and teens are particularly active, with 59% of adults under 30 and 63% of teens using the app. TikTok is a significant news source for many, with 52% of its adult users regularly getting news from the platform, predominantly younger adults, women, and Democrats.
PAFACA Cracks Down
The journey began with the bipartisan Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications (PAFACA) Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by former president Biden last April. The Act makes it unlawful for any entity in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update applications designated as "foreign adversary controlled." The Act governs TikTok because the app is operated by parent company, ByteDance, which is subject to Chinese laws.
The Act mandated the divestiture of TikTok's American assets by January 2025, citing national security concerns over data collection and potential content manipulation by the Chinese government. The fear is that the Chinese government could access user data at any time upon request, per Chinese law. There is also some fear of influencing public opinion through TikTok (which is TikTok has been arguing strenuously that the Act violates the First Amendment).
TikTok Bytes Back
In response to the PAFACA Act, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, arguing that the law infringes on Americans' First Amendment rights and is not feasible within the stipulated timeline. Despite these challenges, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the second-highest court in the land) upheld the constitutionality of the PAFACA Act on December 6, 2024. The court ruled that the act serves compelling national security interests and is narrowly tailored to address these concerns.
TikTok has argued that it has invested billions in safeguarding U.S. user data and proposed a National Security Agreement to address concerns. The company contends that the law unfairly targets TikTok while ignoring other social media platforms. Despite these defenses, the U.S. government remains firm in its stance, emphasizing the need to protect national security.
According to Pew, data shows that support for a government ban on TikTok among U.S. adults has declined over time. In a survey conducted in summer 2024, 32% of adults expressed support for a ban, which is a decrease from 50% in March 2023. Additionally, 28% of adults opposed a ban, while 39% were unsure. The survey also highlighted a political divide, with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents more likely to support a ban (42%) compared to Democrats and Democratic leaners (24%), although support had decreased across both parties since 2023. Furthermore, half of Americans believed it was unlikely that TikTok would be banned in the U.S., while 31% thought a ban was likely, and 19% were unsure.
SCOTUS Settles the Matter…
SCOTUS agreed to hear oral arguments on the issue this month, following ByteDance's request for an emergency stay to delay the ban's implementation. This expedited schedule left little time for the parties to prepare briefs, leaving TikTok's future uncertain. The high court faced the question of whether the Act violated the First Amendment rights of TikTok and its users.
SCOTUS assumed (without officially deciding) that the Act was subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The reason for this assumption was that the Act could disproportionately burden expressive activities. TikTok is a platform for creating, sharing, and viewing content, which are expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. By potentially banning TikTok's operations in the U.S. unless it severed ties with Chinese control, the Act could significantly impact these expressive activities.
The court thus analyzed the Act under intermediate scrutiny, which is the standard of review used to evaluate laws that affect constitutional rights but are not outright bans on speech. This level of scrutiny is applied to content-neutral laws—those that regulate speech without regard to its content. The court deemed the Act content-neutral because it focused on concerns about data collection and national security, rather than targeting specific speech content or viewpoints on TikTok. Under intermediate scrutiny, a law must further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest, without burdening more speech than necessary.
The federal government had argued that it has a compelling interest in preventing China from accessing sensitive data from U.S. TikTok users — and the court agreed. This interest is rooted in national security concerns, as TikTok collects extensive personal information from its users (although it isn't clear it collects more than other social media and tech companies). The government argued that it has a valid worry that this data could be used by China to track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.
SCOTUS then evaluated whether the Act's restrictions on TikTok were appropriately tailored to address the government's national security concerns without unnecessarily infringing on First Amendment rights. A law must be designed to achieve its objectives in a way that does not restrict more speech than necessary. In this case, the Act did not impose an outright ban on TikTok. Instead, it set conditions under which TikTok could continue operating in the U.S., specifically requiring a "qualified divestiture" to sever Chinese control. This approach aimed to address the specific concern of foreign data access without banning the platform entirely. And the court acknowledged that the government explored alternatives, such as disclosure requirements and data-sharing restrictions, but found them inadequate.
Overall, the majority found that the government's interest in protecting national security by preventing foreign access to sensitive data is important and that the Act's provisions are appropriately tailored to achieve this goal without unnecessarily burdening free speech. SCOTUS thus held that the Act does not violate the First Amendment as applied to petitioners, letting the law stand.
…Or Does It?
The result left millions of Americans mourning over the holiday weekend, particularly when TikTok briefly shut down — but not for long. President Trump, who had previously opposed TikTok, reversed his stance after joining the app, emphasizing its cultural impact and value. And having just re-taken office, he issued an executive order yesterday to delay the enforcement of the ban for 75 days.
TikTok briefly went offline and was removed from app stores but returned after Trump's announcement. His order instructed the attorney general not to enforce the law, but legal experts have expressed skepticism about its ability to override the law. For now, the clock has been reset — but the battle for TikTok is clearly far from over.
Related Resources:
- How to Start a TikTok Shop (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Can the Government Really Ban TikTok? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Is the Clock Ticking for TikTok? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)