Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

US Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of TikTok’s efforts to flout a federal “divest-or-ban” law on Friday, as the social media platform warned it could be “dark ” in one of the largest markets in nine days.

Friday’s oral arguments centered on whether to allow a law to be enacted that would force TikTok’s Chinese parentage. ByteDance to remove the platform on January 19 – the day before Donald Trump is inaugurated as president – or face a national ban.

The legislation, which was passed with strong bipartisan support last year, was fueled by concerns that the video platform, which has exploded in popularity among teenagers and now counts 170 million users in the US, could be used by Beijing for espionage purposes or to spread propaganda.

TikTok denied the accusations and claimed the law violated First Amendment protections for free speech. Meanwhile, Trump vowed to “save the app”, and pleaded with the supreme court to delay the legislative deadline to allow “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution to questions on the issue of the case” when he returns to the White House later this month.

Either way, the court’s decision has far-reaching implications for free speech in the US as well as global relations with China.

During oral arguments on Friday, judges across the ideological spectrum repeatedly challenged TikTok’s arguments that the law is an attack on free speech, pointing to concerns that the platform is being used for “covert manipulation” and its data is weak for the Beijing harvest.

A lawyer for TikTok, Noel Francisco of Jones Day, said that the law singles out the company “for exceptionally harsh treatment, and it is done because the government fears that China may, in the future, indirectly pressure on TikTok”.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative wing, responded: “So should we ignore the fact that the last parent was, in fact, subject to doing intelligence for the Chinese government?”

Justice Elena Kagan, part of the court’s liberal wing, admitted that the company would “suffer some severe (but) incidental effects”. If TikTok eventually loses access to ByteDance’s algorithm as a result of a divestiture, the law still “leaves TikTok with the ability to do what every actor in the United States can do, which is the search for the best available algorithm”, he said.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor-general, promoted the national security argument of the government. Beijing’s efforts to weaken the US by gathering “sensitive data” about Americans and its ability to force companies to turn over such material “means the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok.” at any time to harm the United States”, he said.

He said ByteDance has agreed to Beijing’s demands, saying there is evidence that it has “taken action to abuse data . . . to track Hong Kong (and) Uyghur dissidents in China”.

ByteDance also “misused US data” when it admitted it improperly obtained the data of two US journalists, including a Reporter at the Financial Timeshe added.

TikTok argued that a spin-off would be technically “unfeasible” before the deadline. Beijing, which has a say, according to China’s export laws, also said it was against a sale and branded the law a “blatant act of commercial robbery”. Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, reiterated the point on Friday, saying a divestiture would be “more difficult at any time”.

Asked what will happen on January 19 if the company loses this case, Francisco answered: “As I understand it, we are in the dark.”

The court is expected to deliver a decision before the January 19 deadline, which could seal the fate of a leading source of entertainment and news for young people, which provides a livelihood to thousands. -thousands of influencers, as well as attracting the highest advertising dollars.

Even if the court rules against TikTok, Trump can intervene once in power, although it is not clear how. The president-elect’s sudden rescue mission on the video app came in part after he used the platform during last year’s election campaign to connect with young voters.

It also came as Trump said he wanted to preserve “competition” in a market dominated by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, after criticizing the US social network as an “enemy of the people” for saying censoring conservative content.