News
Nine Things We Learned From TikTok’s Lawsuit Against The US Government
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 23, 2023.
AFP via Getty Images
Yesterday, as they promised they would, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality oft the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Apps Act, known as PAFACA or just “The TikTok Ban Bill.”. The bill, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last month, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations by January 19, 2025 or face a ban of the app in the United States.
Most of the arguments in TikTok and ByteDance’s complaint are things that we’ve reported before — including details, acknowledged in the suit by the companies for the first time, but reported exclusively by Forbes last summer, of an ultimately unsuccessful negotiation with the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. But here are nine things that were new or noteworthy, and suggest where this fight may be headed next.
1. RIP Project Texas?
In the complaint, TikTok and ByteDance now allege that they have “invested” more than $2 billion in Project Texas, the legal and technological framework that formed the basis of the companies’ proposal to CFIUS through years of national security negotiations. The ultimate goal of Project Texas was to divorce ownership from control, allowing ByteDance to own TikTok and its algorithm while legally and logistically preventing it from controlling the app’s U.S. operations. But CFIUS rejected Project Texas in March 2023, and the passage of PAFACA shows that Congress, too, thinks it’s not enough.
The $2 billion figure is new, up from a claim by TikTok in early 2023 that the company would spent $1.5 billion on the initiative. Tech companies have for years sought refuge from regulation by portraying themselves as engines of the U.S. economy, and part of TikTok/ByteDance’s strategy here is to project confidence and show that things are business as usual. But continuing to invest in a proposal that the U.S. government has repeatedly rejected may amount to throwing that money away, if the courts say the ban bill can stand.
2. Ghosted By The Government: When The Deal Really Went South
TikTok/ByteDance paint a dramatic picture of CFIUS ghosting them at the negotiating table between August 2022 and March 2023, when CFIUS said that ByteDance would have to sell TikTok or face a ban in the U.S.
“From Petitioners’ perspective, all indications were that they were nearing a final agreement,” the companies write. “After August 2022, however, CFIUS without explanation stopped engaging with Petitioners in meaningful discussions about the National Security Agreement. Petitioners repeatedly asked why discussions had ended and how they might be restarted, but they did not receive a substantive response.”
A lot happened in the months when CFIUS wasn’t talking to TikTok/ByteDance. It was during those months that Forbes revealed a plan by ByteDance’s Internal Audit and Risk Control department to surveil reporters in an effort to ferret out their sources, and ByteDance conducted an investigation showing that its employees had in fact surveilled journalists. ByteDance fired four employees as a result of what it subsequently referred to as “the misguided effort,” including its chief internal auditor and the Beijing-based executive that he reported to.
3. ByteDance’s Founder Lives In Singapore, Not China
The companies say that ByteDance founder Zhang Yiming, a Chinese citizen, is officially living in Singapore. Yiming, who prefers to go by his given name, has lived part-time on the island nation since 2022, where he rode out much of China’s most draconian COVID restrictions, but this is the first time the companies have described him as legally domiciled in a country other than China.
4. TikTok and ByteDance Finally Admit How Tightly They’re Wound Together
TikTok/ByteDance are now leaning into a thread that we’ve reported on for years: that the TikTok app is inextricably tied to the rest of ByteDance’s systems, in a way that makes separating them effectively impossible. “Moving all TikTok source code development from ByteDance to a new TikTok owner would be impossible as a technological matter,” the companies argue, before launching into an explanation about TikTok’s “millions of lines of software code that have been painstakingly developed by thousands of engineers over multiple years.”
It’s an ironic pivot away from a prior narrative in which TikTok and ByteDance insisted they were more separate than they really are. They have claimed time and again that US-based execs are running the show, despite extensive reporting showing that this isn’t and hasn’t ever fully been the case.
The companies also say that “to keep the platform running,” TikTok engineers “would need access to ByteDance software tools, which the Act prohibits.”
To be clear: TikTok’s reliance on other, non-TikTok ByteDance tools is one of the reasons lawmakers are worried about it! The companies’ new Project Texas entity, USDS, has reduced its dependency on ByteDance systems like Lark, the company’s all-in-one office suite, and Seal, its VPN. But their acknowledgement that TikTok still needs to run through ByteDance’s pipes eliminates any doubt that TikTok is still not just owned, but very much also controlled, by ByteDance today.
5. We Don’t Do Punishment By Legislation
PAFACA sets out conditions for how a president can designate an app as a “foreign adversary controlled application.” But it separately places TikTok — and all other ByteDance apps — in this category, without requiring the same presidential designation that is required for any other apps that might someday be covered by the law.
This structure is pretty weird! It likely came about because some lawmakers didn’t want to give the president discretion about whether to designate TikTok or not. By naming a specific app and its parent company in the bill, though, the lawmakers have opened themselves up to one of TikTok and ByteDance’s key claims: that the law is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder — in layman’s terms, a law that seeks to punish a specific person or entity.
We don’t do punishment by legislation in the U.S.; we do it in the courts. So if TikTok can prove that the intent of this bill was to punish or ban it specifically, then the courts will likely find that the law can’t stand.
6. The Chinese Government Will Call The Shots On A Sale
TikTok and ByteDance flatly acknowledge in their complaint that the Chinese government would prohibit ByteDance from selling its famous recommendations algorithm. We’ve heard this from nearly every expert out there, but hearing it directly from TikTok/ByteDance makes clear that the Chinese government is the ultimate arbiter of who gets access to TikTok’s secret sauce.
7. Lawmakers Will Have To Eat Their Own Anti-TikTok Rants
We wrote a few weeks back about how lawmakers’ comments about the content on TikTok might come back to bite them in court, making it harder for the government to prove that it wasn’t acting out of hostility toward the substance of the conversation on the app. Our prophecy came true: TikTok/ByteDance argued exactly this point in their complaint.
8. About That Weird Product Review Carve Out
Lawmakers made a weird carve-out in their law for sites that host product reviews, travel reviews, and business reviews. TikTok and ByteDance say it’s unfair.
The bill is targeted at large platforms where users can create their own posts and view others’ posts — i.e. platforms that enable user-generated content, or UGC. Review apps are technically UGC apps, but they don’t have the same potential influence over discourse and culture as social apps do, so Congress exempted them from the law.
TikTok and ByteDance are now claiming that this exemption favors certain speech (reviews) over other speech (non-reviews). It seems unlikely that legislators were actually trying to privilege one topic of speech over the other, but that may not matter if the courts determine that the exemption effectively does so.
9. Everybody Has Been Gathering Evidence For This Showdown
Both TikTok/ByteDance and the government have spent years preparing for this moment — one where TikTok/ByteDance will argue that the ban bill is ill informed and overbroad and the government will ruefully shake its head and say, “we tried, but there was no other way.”
The First Amendment will govern most of the arguments raised by TikTok and ByteDance. But the First Amendment isn’t a blanket protection for all speech all the time. The parties will fight about which level of scrutiny applies in this case: whether the government will have to show that the law is substantially related to an important government interest (intermediate scrutiny) – or whether it will have to show that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest (strict scrutiny). But that legalese is all just gradations of the same basic question: was this really necessary?
TikTok and ByteDance will pull out their last four years of communications with the government to claim that it wasn’t. They will say — they do say, in the complaint — that Project Texas would’ve worked. That a national data privacy law would’ve worked. That there were plenty of narrower things Congress could’ve done and didn’t do, things that were more targeted to their actual concerns. Because Congress didn’t do those things, TikTok and ByteDance say, they didn’t even try to take the narrowest path here.
But the government has almost certainly been amassing evidence too, even if we haven’t seen it yet. Back in 2020, TikTok and ByteDance defeated President Trump’s first attempt to ban the app in part by arguing that the whole thing was rushed. After that, the Biden Administration spent years in negotiations with the company, engaging with the inner workings of TikTok and ByteDance’s systems. Its agencies also spent many months examining the companies — the FBI and DOJ in a criminal investigation and the FTC in an investigation about the companies misleading users about who could access their data.
TikTok and ByteDance say that PAFACA was rushed just like the Trump ban attempt – from its conception largely in secret to the fact that it was quickly voted on and then appended to an omnibus foreign aid package, all before their lobbyists could get a word in edgewise.
Even if PAFACA was rushed, though, the larger government conversation about TikTok hasn’t been. Years of CFIUS negotiations and agency investigations — as well as classified intelligence — informed the closed-door briefings that members of the House and Senate received before voting on the bill. So we’ll be looking at years’ worth of evidence from both sides as the parties battle it out in Round 2.
MORE FROM FORBES
News
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Stance on Epstein Testimony Nov. 3
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
Hon. James Comer
Hon. Robert Garcia November 3, 2025 Page 2
compel Attorney General Bondi to release what you have stated is a large trove of unseen files, which the public to date is still waiting to see released.
Your October 22 letter does not provide a persuasive rationale for why deposing the Clintons is required to fulfill the mandate of your investigation, particularly when what little information they have may be efficiently obtained in writing.
You state that your investigation into the “mismanagement” of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations and prosecutions requires the depositions of three individuals: former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Clinton, and former Attorney General William Barr – who was serving in the first Trump Administration when Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in federal custody. Compounding this inexplicable choice of deponents, you also have chosen not to depose the dozens of individuals whose links to Mr. Epstein have been publicly documented.
My clients have been private citizens for the last 24 and 12 years, respectively. President Clinton’s term ended six (6) years before allegations surfaced against Mr. Epstein. Former Secretary of State Clinton’s position was in no way related to law enforcement and is completely afield of any aspect of the Epstein matter. While neither of my clients have anything to offer for the stated purposes of the Committee’s investigation, subpoenaing former Secretary Clinton is on its face both purposeless and harassing. I set forth in my October 6 letter the facts that she did not know Epstein, did not travel with him, and had no dealings with him. Indeed, when I met with your staff to learn your basis for including former Secretary Clinton, none was given beyond wanting to ask if she had ever spoken with her husband about this matter. Setting aside the plainly relevant consideration of marital privilege, this is an entirely pretextual basis for compelling former Secretary Clinton to appear personally in this matter.
It is incumbent on the Committee to address the most basic questions regarding the basis for singling out the Clintons, particularly when there is no obvious or apparent rationale for it, given the mandate of the Committee’s investigation. Your October 22 letter does not provide such a justification. And your previous statements, belied by the facts, that President Clinton is a “prime suspect” (for something) because of visits to Epstein’s island betokens bias, not fairness. You said, on August 11:
“Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island, and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there, so he’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee.”
“1
Regrettably, such statements are not the words of an impartial and dispassionate factfinder. In fact, President Clinton has never visited Epstein’s island. He has repeatedly stated that, the Secret Service has corroborated that denial, Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent testimony to Deputy Attorney General Blanche reconfirmed this, as did the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her
Fields, “Comer: Bill Clinton ‘Prime Suspect’ in Epstein Investigation,” The Hill (Aug. 12, 2025).
News
With federal relief on the horizon, Black farmers worry it won’t come soon enough
A cotton field in north Louisiana.
Dylan Hawkins
hide caption
toggle caption
Dylan Hawkins
NEW ORLEANS – James Davis had the best year in his entire farming career this year.
The third-generation Black row crop farmer estimated picking almost 1,300 pounds of cotton, an average of 50 bushels of soybeans, and an average of around 155 bushels of corn on 2,500 acres of his farmland in northeast Louisiana.
But with U.S. commodities facing steep retaliatory tariffs overseas, he says he and many other farmers can’t sell their crops for enough to cover the loans they take out to fund the growing season.
The tariffs, Davis said, are making it almost impossible to survive.
“To have that kind of yield and still not be able to pay all your bills, that tells you something is broken in the farming industry,” Davis said.
In order to plan for next year, farmers need relief now, Davis said. At a recent meeting with his banker, the bank projected 2026 revenues in order to secure crop loans, and the cash flow math wasn’t adding up — the farm’s expected income wasn’t enough to cover operating loans once input costs, equipment notes, land rent and insurance premiums were factored in.

The Trump administration announced just this week a new $12 billion package of one-time bridge payments for American farmers like Davis, aimed at helping them recover from temporary market disruptions and high production costs.
“This relief will provide much needed certainty as they get this year’s harvest to market and look ahead to next year’s crops,” Trump said during a White House roundtable event. “It’ll help them continue their efforts to lower food prices for American families.”
Davis says that type of help can’t come soon enough.
“Without bailouts, it is hard to make crop loans work on paper,” he said in an interview with NPR on Monday.
James Davis asks a question at a panel on farm finances at the National Black Growers Council conference in New Orleans on Dec. 10, 2025. Davis is a third-generation Black row crop farmer who said that despite having the best year he’s ever had in his farming career, he’s still struggling to pay his bills.
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
At the same time, however, the Trump Administration dismantled decades-old USDA programs designed to assist Black farmers by eliminating the “socially disadvantaged” designation, including programs like the 2501 Program, which many Black row-crop farmers rely on for access to credit, technical assistance, and conservation support that are otherwise difficult to secure at county-level USDA offices. The USDA did not respond to requests for interviews or comment.
Those supports, experts said, were designed to help smaller farmers and farmers of color remain on the land.
Welcome relief may not come in time
The Farmer Bridge Assistance Program accounts for up to $11 billion of the newly announced package, and offers proportional payments to farmers growing major commodities, including row crops like soybeans, corn and cotton.
Payments are expected to begin by February of next year, and are designed to offset losses from the 2025 crop year.


For many farmers, that isn’t soon enough. While the bridge payment may help with crop loans, there are immediate bills due for many in the coming weeks.
“This needs to show up like Santa Claus underneath the Christmas tree, to be honest with you,” said PJ Haynie, a fifth-generation Black farmer with rice operations in Virginia and Arkansas and chairman of the National Black Growers Council, which met in New Orleans this week for its annual conference.
“Our landlords want their money by the end of the year — our seed and input and chemical and equipment companies that we have to make payments by the end of the year,” he said.
Some farmers may have relationships with bankers and companies that will work with them and extend payment deadlines a few months, Haynie said — others don’t. And farmers are grateful for any support they receive, but, Haynie said, the one-time bridge payments aren’t enough.
“They still won’t make us whole because of the losses that we’ve incurred because of the markets, the tariffs, the trade,” he said. “But every dollar helps.”
Farmers already face challenges like unpredictable weather, pests and stagnant commodity prices, as well as rising input costs including machinery and fertilizer purchases. “We plant and we pray,” as Haynie put it. Tariffs have only compounded those challenges.
Black farmers face additional challenges
Black farmers like Haynie and Davis make up less than 2% of all U.S. farmers — and Black row-crop farmers, like those at this week’s conference, are an even smaller slice of that.
“Our herd is small,” Haynie said, “and if we can protect the herd, the herd will grow.”
Black farmers have asked the federal government for loan relief and other assistance for decades. A century ago, Black farmers owned at least 16 million acres of land. Today, Haynie said they hold around 2 million.
Following the Civil War, Black Americans were promised “40 acres and a mule” by the federal government, but many say that promise never came to pass.
Over the course of the past 100 years, the amount of Black-owned farmland dropped by 90%, according to Data for Progress, due to higher rates of loan and credit denials, lack of legal and industry support and “outright acts of violence and intimidation.”
Advocates say the inability for Black farmers to get a start, and later the sharp drop in farming population, is in part due to what they call USDA’s discriminatory lending practices, and often specific loan officers’ biases. The agency is the subject of an ongoing discrimination class action lawsuit by Black farmers and additional litigation due to those and other allegations.
Much of that history plays into how Black farmers approach the Trump administration.
“The Black row crop farm community needs the support of the administration,” Haynie said. “I can’t … buy an $800,000 combine to sell $4 corn. The math doesn’t math on that.”
All farmers — “Black or white” — are responding to the same depressed prices, he said. But Black farmers, he argues, already a small percentage of total U.S. growers, and often operating at a smaller scale, have less buffer to absorb sudden market shocks.
As farmers look at their projected costs next year, economists say they’re also navigating deep uncertainty in global markets.
“I think that a lot of farmers are still very much looking at the next year with some trepidation, thinking that their margins will continue to be very, very tight,” said Joseph Glauber, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington D.C.
U.S. trade with China — historically the top buyer of American soybeans and other row crops — has not rebounded to pre–trade war levels despite a new agreement. Meanwhile, Glauber said, countries like Brazil have expanded production dramatically, seizing market share during the trade war and becoming the world’s top soybean exporter — a long-term structural shift that U.S. growers now have to compete against.
Finis Stribling III (left) and John Green II (right) take a break during the National Black Growers Council conference in New Orleans on Dec. 10, 2025. Both Stribling and Green were plagued by bad weather at the start of this year’s growing season, and both said tariffs have only made things harder.
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Hawkins/Gulf States Newsroom
He added that crops grown in the Mississippi River Delta, such as cotton and soybeans, have been hit especially hard by low prices and retaliatory tariffs.
Finis Stribling III farms 800 acres of cotton, rice, corn, soybeans and wheat in Arkansas and Tennessee. At the National Black Growers Council’s conference, he told NPR 2025 was another year of what he calls “farming in deficit.”
“We had too much rain early, then drought,” he said. “And when you finally get a crop in the field, the price support isn’t strong enough to cover the cost of production.”
Sitting next to him during a lunch break at the conference, another Arkansas row crop farmer John Lee II, put it bluntly: “What I’m worried about is next year. What do we do in 2026 when we go to the bank to try and get a loan? I’m concerned about the notion of going to the bank this upcoming year and not being able to get a loan because we can’t make the loan cash flow.”
Both also said the new tariff relief will help — but not nearly to the degree many outside agriculture may think.
“From the outside looking in, non-farm community, you say $12 billion seems like a lot of money,” Stribling said. “But when you look at the cost of production and the money that’s spent in agriculture, $12 billion is really just a drop in the bucket. It’s almost like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.”
News
Manhunt under way for attacker after two students killed at US university
More than 400 law enforcement personnel have been deployed as police search for the suspect in a shooting at Brown University in Rhode Island in which two students were killed and nine wounded, US officials said.
The Ivy League university in Providence remained in lockdown early on Sunday, several hours after a suspect with a firearm entered a building where students were taking exams on Saturday. Streets around the campus were packed with emergency vehicles hours after the shooting, and security was heightened around the city as law enforcement agencies continued their manhunt.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
The suspect remained at large, officials said, as police worked with agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to search streets and buildings around the campus to find the individual.
Saturday’s shooting is the second major incident of gun violence on a university campus this week.
Providence deputy police chief Timothy O’Hara said the suspect had not been identified.
Officials said they would release a video of the suspect, a male possibly in his 30s and dressed in black, who O’Hara said may have been wearing a mask. He said officials had retrieved shell casings from the scene of the shooting, but that police were not prepared to release more details of the attack.
Providence Mayor Brett Smiley has confirmed that two students were killed and nine people were injured in the attack.
At a news conference, Smiley said university leaders became aware of the shooting at about 4:05pm local time (21:05 GMT), when emergency responders received a 911 call.
Smiley declined to identify the shooting victims, citing the ongoing investigation. However, he sought to reassure the community, despite a shelter-in-place order for the Brown campus and the surrounding neighbourhood.
“We have no reason to believe there are any additional threats at this time,” he said.
The university’s president, Christina Paxton, explained she had been on a flight to Washington, DC, when she learned of the shooting. She immediately returned to Providence to attend a night-time news conference.
“This is a day that we hoped never would come to our community. It is deeply devastating for all of us,” Paxton said in a written statement.
At the news conference, Paxton said she was told the victims were students.
Suspect remains at large
At approximately 4:22pm local time (21:22 GMT), the university issued its first emergency update, warning that there was an armed man near the Barus and Holley engineering and physics building.
“Lock doors, silence phones and stay hidden until further notice,” the university said in its update.
“Remember: RUN, if you are in the affected location, evacuate safely if you can; HIDE, if evacuation is not possible, take cover; FIGHT, as a last resort, take action to protect yourself.”
Upon arriving at the scene, law enforcement swept the building, according to Providence police’s O’Hara.
“They did a systematic search of the building. However, no suspect was located at that time,” O’Hara said.
The university had to withdraw an early announcement that a suspect had been apprehended, writing, “Police do not have a suspect in custody and continue to search for suspect(s).”
US President Donald Trump published a similar retraction on his online platform, Truth Social, after erroneously posting at about 5:44pm (22:44 GMT) that a suspect had been detained.
Mayor Smiley said there were 400 law enforcement officers in the area to search for the suspect.
He also encouraged witnesses to come forward with any information about the shooting.
The seventh-oldest university in the US, Brown is considered part of the prestigious Ivy League, a cluster of private research colleges in the northeast. Its student body numbers 11,005, according to its website.
On December 9, Kentucky State University in the southern city of Frankfort also experienced gunfire on campus, killing one student and leaving a second critically injured.
The suspect in that case was identified as Jacob Lee Bard, the parent of a student at the school.
-
Alaska1 week agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Texas1 week agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Washington6 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL1 week agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion
-
Iowa1 day agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans