Supreme Court Ruling on TikTok Grants Trump Unrestricted Power

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to support President Donald Trump‘s initiative to ban the Chinese social media app TikTok has raised concerns regarding the potential overreach of governmental power. According to legal analysts Evelyn Douek and Jameel Jaffer, this ruling may inadvertently grant the Trump administration authority that the Constitution typically restricts. Their op-ed, published in the Guardian on October 30, 2023, argues that a more rigorous examination of the government’s national security claims could have prevented this outcome.

Douek and Jaffer assert that the ruling reflects a trend of the government leveraging national security narratives to gain undue influence. They contend that the TikTok ban is not a novel issue but a repetition of historical patterns where courts are pressured to yield to governmental authority. “If the court had carefully scrutinized the government’s national security arguments, it would have seen that the TikTok ban… is actually just a familiar example of the government exploiting the rhetoric of national security,” they wrote.

During his presidency, Trump and some members of Congress advocated for the ban of TikTok, citing concerns that the Chinese government could access data on American users. However, the conversation surrounding TikTok has evolved. Some lawmakers and tech industry leaders have expressed concerns about the platform’s role in disseminating content related to the conflict in Gaza. They argue that TikTok’s portrayal of events risks altering perceptions of international issues among younger Americans, potentially undermining support for Israel.

Interestingly, since 2024, Trump has shifted his stance and has attempted to block efforts to ban TikTok. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, which deemed TikTok a national security threat, critics voiced disappointment, suggesting it infringes on the First Amendment rights of users. Douek and Jaffer are among those who believe that the ruling poses a significant risk to free speech online. They warn that the implications of this decision could extend to future cases where the government claims national security necessitates the suppression of speech.

In a separate but related development, the Trump administration appears to be negotiating a deal for Oracle Corporation—founded by Trump ally and tech billionaire Larry Ellison—to acquire a majority stake in TikTok’s U.S. operations. This potential arrangement raises further questions about the influence of political affiliations on business decisions, particularly in the context of ongoing discussions about digital privacy and security.

The issue of content moderation is also gaining attention, as there has been an uptick in the censorship of material related to Israel on TikTok. This trend could reflect broader societal tensions and the challenges of balancing free expression with national security considerations.

Trump first proposed the ban on TikTok towards the end of his first term in 2020, but legal challenges prevented its implementation. In 2024, former President Joe Biden enacted a law mandating that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, divest from the platform or face a ban. Despite this, Trump, after returning to the presidency, postponed the enforcement of this requirement indefinitely. He has since extended the divestment deadline multiple times, granting himself the authority to potentially eliminate the app with a simple executive action.

As the Supreme Court prepares to review additional cases involving government claims of national security, the implications of the TikTok decision will likely resonate throughout these deliberations, shaping the future landscape of digital free speech and governmental authority.