Donald Trump’s Theoretical Freedom of Expression vs. The First Amendment: A Motion Against the Brazilian Social Media Banning of TikTok
He said earlier this year that he did not want to ban TikTok but still believed it had national security risks. This month, Trump also met with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.
Donald Trump argues that his 14 million followers on TikTok, along with his ownership of Truth Social gives him the ability to view it as a unique medium of freedom of expression and core political speech. Brazil temporarily banned the X social media platform due to the historic dangers presented by a government banning social media platforms.
In an amicus brief filed to the court, Trump says he “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office,” and that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform.”
In his Supreme Court filing, Trump asks for the bill’s January 19th deadline to be stayed, arguing that the deal he’d negotiate “would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis.”
He offers no details on what said deal would look like, though it would likely have to involve ByteDance selling a signification portion of its ownership in TikTok to an American company.
During his first term in office, Trump tried to ban the popular app due to national security concerns. His team used the app to connect with younger voters, mostly male, by pushing content that was often macho in nature and was aimed to go viral.
The Biden case is risky, and the U.S. can do something about it, according to Trump’s amicus brief
The Biden administration said in its filing Friday that the corporate structure of TikTok is risky because it relies on its propriety engine developed and maintained in China.
But the government “concedes that it has no evidence China has ever attempted to do so,” TikTok’s legal filing said, adding that the U.S. fears are predicated on future risks.
“President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case and was written by D. John Sauer, Trump’s choice for solicitor general.
