Business
How TikTok Evaded a Ban Again and Again, Until Now
In mid-2023, TikTok had just eluded an effort in Congress to ban the video app, the latest Houdini-like escape for the young tech company. For several years, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, lawmakers and officials had trained their sights on the app, saying its Chinese ownership posed a national security risk.
Inside TikTok, a small group of employees started formulating a plan to ensure that the regulatory threat would never reappear, three people with knowledge of the project said. The employees pitched a campaign of TV commercials, messages to users and other public advocacy to turn Washington’s attention elsewhere. They called it Project Achilles.
But TikTok’s leaders lost interest by the end of the year. Several, including Shou Chew, its chief executive, seemed to think the threat of a ban was no longer imminent, the people said. Project Achilles never became reality.
The misreading of the political winds could not have been greater.
Just a few months later, Congress overwhelmingly passed and President Biden signed a law that would ban TikTok unless the app’s owner, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the law. TikTok is set to be removed from app stores on Sunday, when the law goes into effect.
The ban will end a remarkable eight-year roller-coaster ride for TikTok in the United States. The company wriggled its way out of political danger time and again. The threats to its very existence came so often, from so many directions, dealing with them became almost second nature for executives — perhaps to the point of complacency.
All the while, TikTok reached new heights of popularity and public influence. It boasts 170 million monthly U.S. users, giving the company confidence that those masses could help beat back whatever regulators aimed its way. Behind the scenes, TikTok conducted secretive negotiations with government officials and advertising blitzes aimed at rescuing it.
But in the end, the company ran into a well-organized and focused effort among Washington officials that it could not stop. Its biggest gamble yet was that it could overturn the law and avoid a sale altogether — a bet that failed.
Many social media companies have skyrocketed in popularity only to fade away nearly as fast, and others, like Facebook and X, have faced tough scrutiny in Washington. But none have been effectively forced to erase their presence in the country. Only TikTok will have that distinction.
“The vast majority of people I’ve talked to have said TikTok will figure something out, without a very clear answer to what that something will be, because they always have,” said Joe Marchese, a venture capitalist and former TV network executive. People “can’t picture it not working out.”
TikTok is already appealing directly to President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has vowed to save the app, somehow. Mr. Chew posted a direct appeal to Mr. Trump on TikTok after the Supreme Court decision, thanking him “for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States.” TikTok declined to comment on Project Achilles.
Late Friday, the company said that unless the Biden administration made it clear to service providers that they could continue providing services to the app after the law took effect, “unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on Jan. 19.” But on Saturday, the White House press secretary called TikTok’s statement “a stunt.” And Mr. Trump indicated in an interview with NBC News on Saturday that he would “most likely” give TikTok a 90-day extension once he takes office on Monday.
TikTok users are grieving, often couching their dismay in dark humor. Few seem to believe the app will be blocked on Sunday.
“In 2020 I did an interview about the TikTok ban, and I was saying the same thing: ‘I don’t think it’s going to get banned,’” said Yumna Jawad, a recipe developer and content creator who goes by Feel Good Foodie. “Five years later, I’m still doing the same interview.”
It ‘Can Change Somebody’s Life’
Before it was TikTok, it was Musical.ly, a Chinese lip-syncing app popular with teenagers and tweens.
Musical.ly’s two founders had nearly run out of venture funding for an education app when they decided to pivot to D.I.Y. music videos in 2014. The app let users film over 15-second clips of popular songs, often accompanied by a distinct brand of hand choreography.
As Musical.ly grew, ByteDance took notice. It paid around $1 billion for Musical.ly in 2017 and ultimately folded its technology and users into an app that ByteDance had launched internationally only a few months earlier: TikTok. By 2018, TikTok was roaring into the rankings of the most downloaded apps in the United States.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, TikTok became a mainstay in Americans’ lives. The app, with its endless stream of short-form entertainment, was perfectly positioned for a period when many people had more free time than ever. Or, as the musician Curtis Roach put it in the video that would make him one of the pandemic’s earliest breakout stars, a time when many people were “bored in the house.”
“I joined just to post my little funny videos, and TikTok turned into something that can change somebody’s life,” Mr. Roach said in a recent interview.
TikTok seemingly left no corner of culture untouched.
Emma Straub, an author and owner of the independent Books Are Magic bookstores, recalled seeing backlist titles like Madeline Miller’s “The Song of Achilles” suddenly in high demand after BookTok made them popular again. In the culinary world, TikTok sent feta cheese and, later, cucumbers flying off the shelves as home cooks clamored to recreate viral recipes. Jane Wickline leveraged parody videos into a role on “Saturday Night Live.” TikTok was the most downloaded app in the United States and world in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Almost overnight, teenagers became household names. By November 2020, Charli D’Amelio had amassed 100 million followers, making her, at that time, the most-followed person on TikTok in the world. She became, at age 16, famous for recording dance videos in her bedroom. By 2021, her family would have a reality show on Hulu.
“It was a vehicle for my kids and us to follow their dreams,” said Marc D’Amelio, Ms. D’Amelio’s father.
Regulatory Reality
As TikTok’s popularity surged, so did scrutiny from the U.S. government. But TikTok managed to evade almost everything officials threw at it.
The first serious effort to ban the app in the United States came in the summer of 2020 from Mr. Trump, during his first term as president. TikTok was already on edge after a ban in India. Then Mr. Trump raised concerns that ByteDance could hand over sensitive TikTok user data to the Chinese government.
“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” he said in July 2020.
Mr. Trump later hedged, saying he did not mind if Microsoft or another “very, very American” company bought TikTok instead. In August, he issued an executive order that effectively barred app stores from hosting TikTok. It gave companies a 45-day deadline to comply.
TikTok sued to block the executive order. As the deadline approached, the company tried to find a path that would assuage Mr. Trump’s fears by having two American companies take a stake in a new U.S.-based company, TikTok Global, which would go public within a year. But at the 11th hour, the deal appeared to be imperiled by the Chinese government and conflicts over ByteDance’s involvement.
Suddenly the ban seemed imminent — and yet TikTok emerged unscathed.
That fall, two federal courts agreed with TikTok that the executive order was unlawful and stopped the ban from going into effect. Shortly afterward, Mr. Trump lost his bid for re-election, complicating policymakers’ approach to addressing the concerns they had about TikTok and shelving the contentious deal.
TikTok wasn’t out of the woods. The Biden administration had many of the same national security concerns about the app. And some states began acting on their own against it.
By early 2023, more than a dozen states had blocked the app from government-owned devices and networks, joining previous bans by the Army and the Air Force. That April, Montana passed a law to block the app outright in the state to protect its citizens’ data from China. TikTok sued, saying the law was overreaching and violated the First Amendment.
Congress had also started discussing a ban in earnest — conversations that multiplied after lawmakers grilled Mr. Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, in a five-hour hearing in March 2023. TikTok had also been working for years on a proposal to show it could operate independently from China, but that same month, the Biden administration started to seem increasingly skeptical of it in public.
That fall, Republican lawmakers began accusing TikTok of amplifying pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel videos and a decades-old letter by Osama bin Laden through its algorithmic feed.
Yet by the end of 2023, TikTok had escaped defeat again. A huge lobbying campaign that included flying TikTok stars to Washington helped fend off the proposal that Congress had been discussing.
The company’s legal case against the Montana law prevailed, too. That November, a federal court ruled that TikTok wouldn’t have to go dark in that state after all.
By December 2023, more than 150 million people were using TikTok in the United States.
‘Lower the Temperature’
With both the congressional effort and Montana’s ban behind them, some of TikTok’s top leaders seemed to believe the worst of the threats had passed.
Mr. Chew agreed to a rare profile in Vogue Singapore. Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of policy for the Americas, and Zenia Mucha, who oversees TikTok’s marketing and communications, were among executives who flew to Singapore, where Mr. Chew was based, and downplayed the near-term risk of a ban to company leaders, two people familiar with the trip said. After all, President Biden had just joined the app around the 2024 Super Bowl.
Ms. Mucha reflected that the company needed to “lower the temperature” and keep TikTok out of the news, according to four employees who heard her use the phrase when dismissing efforts, like Project Achilles, to prepare for a ban.
What ByteDance and TikTok didn’t realize — despite their well-paid policy staff and millions in lobbying expenditures — was that a small bipartisan group of lawmakers was secretly working on drafting a new law designed to withstand every legal challenge that TikTok had raised in the past. It was formally introduced last March.
TikTok was blindsided. It scrambled to respond, flying creators to Washington and sending pop-up messages to users, urging them to call their representatives to oppose the legislation.
But this time, its campaign failed. Congress passed the bill rapidly, with rare bipartisan support, and Mr. Biden signed it into law in April, less than eight weeks after its introduction — leading some aides to nickname it “Thunder Run.” Unlike Mr. Trump’s executive action, the law was upheld in the courts.
A Last Hope
Despite TikTok’s looming ban, it was largely business as usual inside the company.
Two weeks after Mr. Biden signed the TikTok law, Mr. Chew and his wife joined dozens of celebrity guests at the 2024 Met Gala in Manhattan, which TikTok sponsored. The company told advertisers like L’Oreal and Victoria’s Secret that it wasn’t backing down from its U.S. business over drinks in New York and on the French Riviera at the ad industry’s annual confab in Cannes. It said it would sponsor the Washington Capitals hockey team in September.
TikTok executives have, at times, made light of the possible ban, suggesting in one staff meeting over the summer that it would one day be the subject of a Hollywood film.
In October, Mr. Beckerman held a gathering for his team in Lima, Peru, flying dozens of employees there, three people with knowledge of the outing said. The team outings were typically a mix of business and fun — but the jaunt struck some as surprising given the company’s situation. (TikTok said a hurricane had forced it to switch from an original destination of Miami.)
Now, TikTok is pinning its last hope on Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump, who now has 14.8 million followers on his TikTok account, publicly changed his stance on the app last March. He has vowed to save it, though his options, even as president, are limited. He cannot overturn the law on his own, and it is not clear how he might stop its enforcement. He could try to exercise a one-time 90-day extension for TikTok if he determines sale talks are underway that would meet the terms of the law.
TikTok does not seem to be giving up. The company is spending thousands to be the headline sponsor of an event on Sunday, the day the law is scheduled to go into effect, celebrating the conservative influencers who helped shape the 2024 election. On Monday, Mr. Chew will attend the inauguration, alongside former presidents, family members and other important guests.
TikTok’s stars do not seem to believe this is the final blow, either. Bethenny Frankel, the Bravo star and entrepreneur, said she had a hard time believing that TikTok could be gone on Sunday. TikTok’s users will figure out a way forward, she said.
“They’re club kids, and they’re going to figure out where the after-party is,” Ms. Frankel said. “They’re not letting the club get shut down.”
Business
Commentary: The UC faculty just won a big court victory over Trump. But why didn’t UC join their lawsuit?
On Nov. 14 the faculty and staff of the University of California won a significant victory over President Trump in his effort to fine UCLA $1.2 billion for resisting his efforts to bend the university to his ideological demands.
Finding that the plaintiffs submitted “overwhelming evidence” that Trump and his cabinet members pursued a campaign of cutting off government funding with the goal of “bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune,” federal Judge Rita Lin of San Francisco blocked the fine and nearly $600 million in funding cuts. She ordered the money to start flowing again.
Lin’s ruling resembles those by other federal judges who blocked Trump’s funding cutoffs. Faculty and staff representatives, with the American Assn. of University Professors as the lead plaintiff, justly celebrated the UC injunction, even though it’s likely that the government will appeal.
It may be hard for an educational institution to ride this out until 2029. For an institution that budgets on an annual basis, three years is a long time.
— Dan Schnur, UC Berkeley
But two entities with an interest in the case’s outcome have been silent: the state of California and UC itself. Neither joined the AAUP lawsuit, which was filed in September, and neither has commented since.
It’s not as though the state and the university are blind to the potential impact of Trump’s funding cutoff. When Trump’s demands and threats were made public in August, Gov. Newsom termed them “extortion” and threatened to sue. UC President James B. Milliken said the announced cuts would be a “death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy and fortifies our national security.”
Addressing the UC Board of Regents at its meeting Wednesday, Milliken stated that the university system still faces the loss of more than $1 billion in federal research funding, but didn’t mention the AAUP lawsuit.
UC reportedly has continued negotiations with the White House. A UC spokesperson wouldn’t comment on any such talks, even to confirm them. A spokesman for Gov. Newsom said he’s closely watching the numerous court cases challenging Trump’s funding threats, and “he’s pleased with the recent court rulings affirming that Trump’s assault on California’s world-class research institutions was reckless and illegal.”
Let’s keep in mind what’s at stake in this battle. The University of California is the premier public university system in the nation. It’s the second-largest employer in the state and one of the most important providers of healthcare. The productivity of its research is spectacular. Much of the universities’ work is supported by the government — $17 billion a year, including matching Medicaid and Medicare funding and student aid.
“We were hopeful that the UC system would defend itself legally,” says Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine and general counsel to the AAUP. After UCLA published the administration’s 27-page list of demands in August, she says, the AAUP decided it couldn’t wait any longer: “We couldn’t not sue, they were so outrageous.”
The demands included bans on diversity programs, public demonstrations across much of the campus and provisions for transgender students. UCLA also would be required to refuse admission to foreign students “likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions,” and to comply with Trump’s ban on “gender ideology” — that is, defining males and females as anything other than the sex they were assigned at birth.
The state and the UC system haven’t entirely avoided legal jousting with Trump. California led seven other states into federal court to challenge the Dept. of Education’s termination of $65 million in grants funding programs that included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. They won at the trial level, but the Supreme Court stayed that ruling on grounds that the case may have been brought in the wrong federal court.
The regents also joined a lawsuit brought by the Assn. of American Universities and 13 other universities challenging the Dept. of Health and Human Services limit on reimbursements for overhead costs on government-funded research, which would cost universities billions of dollars. They won at the trial level, but the government appealed that ruling. The state also sued Trump or participated in lawsuits on other topics.
One can understand, even sympathize with, the reluctance of UC to pursue a courtroom fight over Trump’s demands. UC faces the same quandary as other institutions that have tried to reach accords with the administration.
Trump has almost unlimited tools at his discretion to harass his adversaries for years to come through endless “investigations” of purported statutory violations, among other things. Courtroom battles take time and money, resources that may never be recovered. Plus with a pro-Trump majority on the Supreme Court, ultimate victory is nothing like a certainty.
And while Trump’s term won’t last beyond January 2029, at which point his anti-university campaign might end, that may be cold comfort for institutions facing an immediate financial crisis.
“It may be hard for an educational institution to ride this out until 2029,” says Dan Schnur, a veteran political consultant on the faculty of UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies. “For an institution that budgets on an annual basis, three years is a long time, and for a student, it’s three-fourths of an undergraduate experience.”
That brings us to the case the UC faculty and staff made in court. It’s as clear and concise a description of the noxious campaign Trump has conducted against American higher education that one will find anywhere. It was accepted almost in its entirety by Judge Lin.
The administration consistently has portrayed the funding cutoffs as a response to what it claims to be pervasive antisemitism at UCLA and other targeted campuses. Yet as federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs of Boston found in September when she blocked Trump’s grant terminations against Harvard, it’s “difficult to conclude anything other than that [the government] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
Indeed, the UC plaintiffs show that the funding cutoffs were motivated purely by ideology, and flagrantly infringed on free speech rights. Just a week after Trump’s inauguration, the White House issued an order suspending all financial disbursements that involved “DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” (“DEI” refers to programs aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion, a favored target of the right.)
The faculty lawsuit quotes Leo Terrell, an assistant attorney general for civil rights and a named defendant, telling Fox News, “The academic system in this country has been hijacked by the left, has been hijacked by the Marxists.” He said, “We’re gonna bankrupt these universities. We’re gonna take away every single dollar.” In an interview he said he had “targeted 10 schools. Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, UCLA, USC… We’re going to take away [their] funding.”
The lawsuit positions the administration’s campaign against UCLA against its similar attacks on funding at Columbia, Brown and Harvard. It also points to the folly of trying to settle with Trump out of court.
Columbia was among the first universities to settle with Trump — it would ultimately agree to $221 million in payments and to give the government extraordinary oversight of its hiring, pedagogical and social policies. Initially that was a response in March to a government threat to block some $400 million in federal grants.
But even after its initial capitulation in March Trump continued to block $1.2 billion in funding until Columbia agreed to additional demands in July.
As Judge Lin described the government campaign against UCLA and other universities launched by the White House, it starts when “one or more … agencies open civil rights investigations into a university…. Before the investigations are concluded, Funding Agencies cancel large amounts of federal funding.” Then the Justice Department offers to settle with the targets “in exchange for further burdening faculty, staff, and student speech.”
It’s theoretically possible that the Trump administration could make its funding cutoffs stick if it follows the procedures enshrined in law for terminating federal grants (and it may yet prevail in appeals to the Supreme Court).
The rules require government agencies to issue a notice of possible violation and attempt to negotiate a settlement and hold a hearing, then file a report with the House and Senate specifying “the circumstances and grounds for such action” and wait at least 30 days more before canceling any funding. The cancellations can apply only to the specific program deemed to be violating the law.
The goal of these safeguards, Lin observed, is to protect grant recipients from “‘vindictive’ or ‘punitive’” actions by the government. In these cases, the government followed none of the mandated procedures.
The administration‘s defense, in part, is that the funding cutoffs are entirely within its discretion and can’t be reviewed by a judge, assertions Lin specifically rejected. The administration also stated that the August demand letter to UCLA was merely an “opening settlement offer” in ongoing “confidential settlement negotiations” with the university.
Given the findings from federal judges that Trump has flouted the legal safeguards against abrupt and arbitrary grant cancellations in favor of illicit bullying, the question facing universities trying to negotiate their way out is: What is there to negotiate? The record so far indicates that no settlement will fully satisfy Trump or his anti-woke warriors; only judges can bring the campaign to a halt.
It’s certainly true that in the short run, Trump’s targets will suffer great pain. He knows well that they’re vulnerable to blunt force. “With every day that passes,” Lin observed, “UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratcheting up [the government’s] pressure campaign.”
In the long run, however, there are limits to how much an educational institution can concede.
One is tempted to recall what Michael Corleone said in “The Godfather Part II” when he was being bullied by the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary into paying a bribe: “My offer is this,” he said. “Nothing.”
It may not be so easy for even powerful universities to take such an uncompromising stand. But it may be necessary.
Business
Skechers investors say they were forced to take a bad deal when the company went private
Skechers investors are suing company executives and Skechers owner 3G Capital over what they say was an unfair sale price in an acquisition earlier this year.
3G Capital took the Manhattan Beach-based sneaker company private in a $9.4-billion deal that closed in September and reflected a share price of $63 per share.
In a class action complaint filed this month in Delaware Chancery Court, hedge funds and other large Skechers investors accused the company and 3G Capital of arranging a non-independent deal that shortchanged minority shareholders.
The deal undervalued the company as its shares were taking a beating because of a volatile federal tariff policy, the complaint said. The deal also benefited Skechers President Michael Greenberg and other controlling shareholders, according to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs seeking a higher share price were unable to reach an early settlement with Skechers after the company made an offer that was slightly higher than the original price, Bloomberg reported this week.
According to court documents, 3G Capital had offered a price of $73 per share in March this year, but lowered its offer after Trump’s tariff “liberation day” on April 2.
Investors are now pressing ahead with the case, according to Bloomberg.
Skechers said it would not comment on pending legal matters.
Skechers was one of many footwear and apparel companies that sounded the alarm when Trump passed steep import taxes on countries including China and Vietnam, where many Skechers products are made.
The company’s stock price fell 23% in early April after the tariffs were announced. Shares bounced back up 30% after the 3G Capital deal was announced.
Around the time of the acquisition, 3G Capital and Skechers said the purchase price represented a 30% premium to the company’s 15-day volume-weighted average stock price.
After the deal closed, about 60 investment pools managed by various firms filed to challenge the price of $1.3 billion worth of shares.
Plaintiffs in the case say Chief Executive Robert Greenberg, along with his son Michael, the company’s president, worked closely with 3G Capital to tailor an acquisition deal that worked for them amid tariff chaos.
“The merger was carefully structured to allow the Greenberg stockholders to monetize a substantial amount of their personal Skechers’ holdings,” the court complaint said.
Business
Video: What the Jobs Report Tells Us About the Economy
new video loaded: What the Jobs Report Tells Us About the Economy
By Lydia DePillis, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart, Gabriel Blanco and Jacqueline Gu
November 21, 2025
-
Business6 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World5 days agoFrance and Germany support simplification push for digital rules
-
News6 days agoCourt documents shed light on Indiana shooting that sparked stand-your-ground debate
-
World1 week ago2% of Russian global oil supply affected following Ukrainian attack
-
World6 days agoCalls for answers grow over Canada’s interrogation of Israel critic
-
World5 days agoSinclair Snaps Up 8% Stake in Scripps in Advance of Potential Merger
-
Business5 days ago
Amazon’s Zoox offers free robotaxi rides in San Francisco
-
Politics5 days agoDuckworth fires staffer who claimed to be attorney for detained illegal immigrant with criminal history