Taiwanese state of matter culture medium has responded to Donald Trump ’s determination that he ’s the president of TikTok now , accusing him of stealing . Reutersquoted the state - endorse theme China Daily , in which the editorial boardwrotethat China wo n’t tolerate Donald Trump ’s “ hector ” and outright “ thievery ” of TikTok , and that China had “ plenty of ways to respond if the administration carries out its plan strike and seize . ” Another state - backed paper , theGlobal Times , speak out that “ Washington ignores rules and is unreasonable ” in its efforts to quash China - based companies , which it ’s able to do thanks to “ technological superiority ” and influence with allies .
Trump has recentlyblustered about a “ ban”on TikTok ; on Monday , he switched tactics , endanger to pressure ByteDance to deal TikTok to a “ very American ” company ( in this sheath , Microsoft ) by September 15 , or else . Hethen likenedthe United States to a fiefdom of feudatory - companies who owe the Treasury a baseball swing of every flock broker on his dirt .
“ It ’s like the landlord and the tenant , ” he rambled in apress conference . “ And , uh , without a lease , the renter does n’t have the economic value . We ’re sort of in a certain way the lease . ”
Image: Drew Angerer (Getty Images)
As TechCrunch report , he alsotold reportersthat the U.S. should be “ reimbursed ” for the deal , whatever that means . China Dailyquoted U.S. source likening that sheer to mafioso - like extortion , as did theBBC .
According toCNN , the CEO of ByteDance , which owns TikTok , believes that Trump has no interest in a sale . In a memo to employees , Zhang Yiming reportedly said that it “ feel like ” the government is going for “ a ban or even more , ” due to the “ current macro situation , ” which presumptively refer to Trump ’s desire to come along dominant over China .
The de jure dubious “ banning ” would likely involve more maneuvering than Trump is admitting to . As Jeffrey Douglas , chairman emeritus of the nonprofit the First Amendment Lawyers Association , explained to Gizmodo , banning a communicatory app would require “ an inordinately gamey level of proof ” since it appear to be a “ prior restraint ” under national surety , a valid example of which would be foreclose an outlet from publishing troop movements in war metre . Even if they were able to prove such a falling out , a requirement for anterior restraint is that the governance “ imposes the least possible restrictive encroachment on the communicatory activity”—which seems unlikely to expand to a nationwide ban .
Supposing the regimen were able-bodied to meet such a burden of proof , though , how would a ban work ? Are Americans ordered to delete TikTok from their phones ? Are Apple and Google force to remove it from their U.S. stores ? Is there a firewall put in place , blocking access to TikTok within the rural area ? Is TikTok order to edit all U.S. users ’ accounts ?
“ A reviewing court would have to address each [ scenario ] separately , and the ‘ administration ’ would need to meet the prior constraint criterion for each of your case-by-case situation , ” Douglas told Gizmodo . “ Your interrogation demonstrate the outrageousness of difficulties for the governing to articulate an actual ban . ”
Let ’s say Trump effort to ban TikTok from app stores . “ Banning diffuse the app in the app stock would stir the First Amendment right of the app stores to allot software , ” Kurt Opsahl , deputy executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation , state Gizmodo . App stores have a First Amendment right to stagger software system , which homage have accommodate is address . Even if Apple and Google independently decided to remove the app , Opsahl pointed out , virtually 100 million the great unwashed in the U.S. have already downloaded it .
“ Of course , we may never get to a formal ban or divestment parliamentary procedure , ” Opsahl add , observe the possible Microsoft sale . But Opsahl noted that “ TikTok is deserving more ” without pressure from the U.S. government .
A possible app memory board “ ban ” lead Alex “ Jay ” Balan , master security researcher for leading cybersecurity company Bitdefender , to worry more about setting a case law for arbitrary secernment . He pointed out that it ’s not unusual for apps to be transfer or denied entree to an app stock , once cybersecurity companies harmonize , and/or Google and Apple find , that an app is unsafe . But typically , he enounce , Google and Apple ply transparent ground for removal , namely , that it violates the full term of Robert William Service or infringes on drug user privacy . “ If there is a rule put in spot for TikTok , will that apply to all the applications ? ” Balan asked . “ you could not just ban TikTok because it ’s from China or because somebody find a vulnerability , which purportedly they have fixed . Will other applications be block under the same criteria , or will raw criteria appear ? That ’s a question I do n’t have an answer to , but it ’s definitely deserving answer in this setting . ”
update : 2025-05-25 , 11:43 a.m. ET : This post has been update to let in comment from Jay Balan .
Daily Newsletter
Get the estimable technical school , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
news show from the future tense , deport to your present .
Please pick out your desired newssheet and submit your email to promote your inbox .
