On Jan. 17, the Supreme Court launched a sweeping, unanimous assault on the First Amendment. By ruling in favor of a federal ban on TikTok–the fourth most popular social media platform in the United States–the Court effectively elevated “national security” above constitutional free speech rights.
This move aligns with an increasingly anti-China agenda within the U.S. government, which routinely uses the specter of “foreign adversaries” to justify censorship and attacks on democratic rights.
The ban took effect on Jan. 19. Hours after shutting down, TikTok announced that service would be restored after President-elect Donald Trump said he would sign an executive order on his first day in office to delay enforcing the U.S. ban of the social media platform.
Congress did order that TikTok ownership should be turned over to the U.S. tech-industrial complex by the Jan. 19 deadline, and Trump says his executive order is only to allow time for a U.S. takeover of a controlling interest (50%) of TikTok.
Regardless of what happens next, the Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications.
Anti-China justifications
Notably, the justices anchored their decision in Congress’s claim that TikTok’s relationship with China–now labeled the primary “foreign adversary”–poses a grave risk.
The justices seem to claim that the ban is not aimed at suppressing particular viewpoints, yet they put “national security” over free speech:
There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression … But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.
In other words, the Court effectively concedes TikTok is a powerful platform for speech–only to elevate the U.S. government’s anti-China stand above the First Amendment.
The enemies list
This logic opens the door to systematic assaults on domestic opposition to war or any policy the government designates as aiding “foreign adversaries.” Once a country (in this case, China) is designated an enemy, any expression or platform seen as potentially advantageous to that so-called adversary can be curbed.
TikTok’s ban was initiated under Trump’s first administration, spurred by Republican “China hawk” Michael Gallagher and other anti-China crusaders. The justices also cited the Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order on “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries,” which defines “foreign adversary” so broadly as to encompass any government or organization considered “significantly adverse” to Wall Street and U.S. corporate interests.
Under such an expansive definition, practically any government from Beijing to Panama City could be labeled a hostile actor if it dared challenge U.S. policies. Indeed, Trump recently called the Panama Canal a “national security” asset. If Panama were to resist U.S. control of the Panama Canal, it, too, could be construed as posing a “threat.” In this context, banning an app because of its Chinese ownership signals how aggressively U.S. policymakers are prepared to stoke anti-China paranoia under the banner of defending “national security.”
Criminalizing social media
Particularly insidious is the Court’s reference to “Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010),” which criminalized providing “material support” to designated “foreign terrorist organizations”–even if that support was simply legal advice. By drawing an analogy to China’s tech companies, the ruling essentially endorses the notion that working with or using technology from a “foreign adversary” is tantamount to collusion or aiding hostile interests.
The hypocrisy is striking. U.S. government agencies and corporations, with a documented history of unlawful surveillance (brought to light by Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations), are now positioning themselves as defenders of privacy and security, justifying the ban of Chinese platforms on these grounds.
The NSA and other U.S. agencies have systematically gathered personal communications on a massive scale, aiming at “total information awareness.” However, none of this has produced bans on U.S. companies or apps. Instead, only the “adversary” label is invoked to quash a highly successful Chinese-owned platform that is not accused of gathering any more data than all other social media companies. In fact, the Washington Post found that TikTok gathers less data than Facebook. The Chinese government would never need TikTok to get access to personal info, which is widely available through multiple sources.
The Supreme Court falsely claims that TikTok’s ban doesn’t target specific viewpoints, but the legislative record shows otherwise. Leading Congressional voices have consistently accused TikTok of pushing “Chinese propaganda” and undermining pro-U.S. narratives, citing the platform’s lack of “fact checking,” allowing everything from the use of pro-Palestinian hashtags to criticisms of Washington’s foreign policy. Senator Mike Gallagher–one of the ban’s main orchestrators–branded TikTok “digital fentanyl” and openly called for crushing the platform to counter “the CCP’s worldview,” that is, to impose a capitalist ideology and an imperialist agenda.
The ban on TikTok represents more than just a regulatory action against a social media platform; it signifies a strategic maneuver in the escalating U.S. campaign against China. As the U.S. government broadens its anti-China initiatives, fundamental democratic rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to speak out, are among the casualties.