The conflict between security and free speech isn’t new, but TikTok has revived a century-old debate. The app, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has faced scrutiny over allegations that it collects user data and is able to share it with the Chinese government. [1] In response, the federal government has argued that TikTok poses a serious national security threat, justifying efforts to either ban the platform or force its divestiture. President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok with an executive order in 2020, but the effort was quickly blocked in court. In TikTok Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the administration likely exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and that the ban likely violated First Amendment protections. [2] The Biden administration initially reversed this approach but later supported legislation aimed at addressing the national security risks posed by the foreign-owned application. [3] This raised a critical constitutional question about the limits of free speech and the government’s power to regulate platforms under the guise of national security. Yet, the underlying legal conflict transcends politics and touches on the core of constitutional governance: does national security override the fundamental right to free speech, or does the First Amendment stand as a shield even against claims of national security?

Read More