Business
TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button
|
The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States. TikTok responded with the following statement: “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” The Free Speech Shuffle TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China. |
 |
|
TikTok has been accused of being influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.
|
|
ByteDance’s Legal Tango
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold. But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term. The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory. Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator. Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit. Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark. |
 |
|
More than 170 million Americans use TikTok.
|
|
TikTok Fights Back
TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist. But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else. A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides. Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses. Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet. $2 Billion in Data Defenses TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago. But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech. Divestment Drama Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic. Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations. TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one. The Clock is Ticking If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it. And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise. This is far from over. |
|
If you value free speech and privacy, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.
Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance. Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you
|
Trump Rips Into Obama and Trudeau at G7 for a “Very Big Mistake” on Russia
At the G7 in Canada, President Trump didn’t just speak—he delivered a headline-making indictment.
Standing alongside Canada’s Prime Minister, he directly blasted Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, accusing them of committing a “very big mistake” by booting Russia out of the G8. He warned that this move didn’t deter conflict—it unleashed it, and he insists it paved the way for the war in Ukraine.
Before the working sessions began, the two leaders fielded questions. The first topic: the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada. Trump didn’t hesitate to point out that the issue wasn’t personal—it was philosophical.
“It’s not so much holding up. I think we have different concepts,” Trump said. “I have a tariff concept, Mark [Carney] has a different concept, which is something that some people like.”
He made it clear that he prefers a more straightforward approach. “I’ve always been a tariff person. It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s precise and it just goes very quickly.”
Carney, he added, favors a more intricate framework—“also very good,” Trump said. The goal now, according to Trump, is to examine both strategies and find a path forward. “We’re going to look at both and we’re going to come out with something hopefully.”
When asked whether a deal could be finalized in a matter of days or weeks, Trump didn’t overpromise, but he left the door open. “It’s achievable but both parties have to agree.”
Then the conversation took an unexpected turn.
Standing next to Canada’s Prime Minister, whose predecessor helped lead that push, Trump argued that isolating Moscow may have backfired. “The G7 used to be the G8,” he said, pointing to the moment Russia was kicked out.
He didn’t hold back. “Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in.”
This wasn’t just a jab at past leaders. Trump was drawing a direct line from that decision to the war in Ukraine. According to him, expelling Russia took away any real chance at diplomacy before things spiraled.
“They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake even though I wasn’t in politics then, I was loud about it.” For Trump, diplomacy doesn’t mean agreement—it means keeping adversaries close enough to negotiate.
“It was a mistake in that you spent so much time talking about Russia, but he’s no longer at the table. It makes life more complicated. You wouldn’t have had the war.”
Then he made it personal. Trump compared two timelines—one with him in office, and one without. “You wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,” he said. “But it didn’t work out that way.”
Before reporters could even process Trump’s comments on Russia, he shifted gears again—this time turning to Iran.
Asked whether there had been any signs that Tehran wanted to step back from confrontation, Trump didn’t hesitate. “Yeah,” he said. “They’d like to talk.”
The admission was short but revealing. For the first time publicly, Trump confirmed that Iran had signaled interest in easing tensions. But he made it clear they may have waited too long.
“They should have done that before,” he said, referencing a missed 60-day negotiation window. “On the 61st day I said we don’t have a deal.”
Even so, he acknowledged that both sides remain under pressure. “They have to make a deal and it’s painful for both parties but I would say Iran is not winning this war.”
Then came the warning, delivered with unmistakable urgency. “They should talk and they should talk IMMEDIATELY before it’s too late.”
Eventually, the conversation turned back to domestic issues: specifically, immigration and crime.
He confirmed he’s directing ICE to focus its efforts on sanctuary cities, which he accused of protecting violent criminals for political purposes.
He pointed directly at major Democrat-led cities, saying the worst problems are concentrated in deep blue urban centers. “I look at New York, I look at Chicago. I mean you got a really bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the governor is probably the worst in the country, Pritzker.”
And he didn’t stop there. “I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals and New York and L.A., look at L.A. Those people weren’t from L.A. They weren’t from California most of those people. Many of those people.”
According to Trump, the crime surge isn’t just a local failure—it’s a direct consequence of what he called a border catastrophe under President Biden. “Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities.”
“All blue cities. All Democrat-run cities.”
He closed with a vow—one aimed squarely at the ballot box. Trump said he’ll do everything in his power to stop Democrats from using illegal immigration to influence elections.
“They think they’re going to use them to vote. It’s not going to happen.”
Just as the press corps seemed ready for more, Prime Minister Carney stepped in.
The momentum had clearly shifted toward Trump, and Carney recognized it. With a calm smile and hands slightly raised, he moved to wrap things up.
“If you don’t mind, I’m going to exercise my role, if you will, as the G7 Chair,” he said. “Since we have a few more minutes with the president and his team. And then we actually have to start the meeting to address these big issues, so…”
Trump didn’t object. He didn’t have to.
By then, the damage (or the impact) had already been done. He had steered the conversation, dropped one headline after another, and reshaped the narrative before the summit even began.
By the time Carney tried to regain control, it was already too late.
Wherever Trump goes, he doesn’t just attend the event—he becomes the event.
Thanks for reading! This post took time and care to put together, and we did our best to give this story the coverage it deserved.
If you like my work and want to support me and my team and help keep this page going strong, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.
This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.
If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.
We both truly appreciate your support!
This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Kris Sims
The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn
The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.
The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.
This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.
And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.
To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.
St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”
That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.
Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.
The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.
Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.
Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health2 days agoLast day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!
-
conflict1 day ago“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Energy1 day agoKananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Honeymoon Phase Enters a ‘Make-or-Break’ Week
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoThe Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine
-
Energy1 day agoCould the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta announces citizens will have to pay for their COVID shots
-
conflict1 day agoIsrael bombs Iranian state TV while live on air