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
U.S. Targets Iran’s Missile and Drone Program With Sanctions
The United States on Friday announced a flurry of new sanctions intended to increase pressure on Iran’s economy, targeting people and companies in China and Hong Kong that have been helping the Iranian military gain access to supplies and war equipment.
The sanctions came ahead of a major summit between President Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing next week. China’s support for Iran has become a flashpoint with the Trump administration, which has been trying to compel independent Chinese refineries to stop purchasing Iranian oil.
China is Iran’s biggest buyer of oil, and the Trump administration has said that it is sponsoring terrorism by propping up the Iranian economy.
The new sanctions are aimed at Iran’s military industrial supply chain, and are intended to make it harder for Iran to secure access to the material it needs to build drones and missiles. In addition to China, the sanctions also target people and companies based in Belarus and the United Arab Emirates.
“Under President Trump’s decisive leadership, we will continue to act to keep America safe and target foreign individuals and companies providing Iran’s military with weapons for use against U.S. forces,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.
The Trump administration has been looking for ways to squeeze Iran’s economy and pressure the Iranian government to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for the flow of global oil. Oil tankers have had sporadic access to the critical waterway since the war started earlier this year, and the United States and Iran have been fighting over who should control it.
U.S. warships that have been trying to transit the strait have been attacked by Iranian forces. The United States on Friday fired on and disabled two Iranian-flagged oil tankers as they tried to reach an Iranian port.
The Treasury Department has also imposed sanctions on the Chinese “teapot” refineries this month. The independent refineries are major purchasers of Iranian oil. But China invoked a domestic policy ordering its companies to disregard the sanctions.
Mr. Bessent said earlier this week that he expected Mr. Trump to urge Mr. Xi to use the country’s leverage over Iran to pressure it to allow oil cargo to travel.
“Let’s see if China — let’s see them step up with some diplomacy and get the Iranians to open the strait,” Mr. Bessent told Fox News on Monday.
Business
General Motors to pay $12.5 million to settle claims that it illegally sold California driver data
General Motors has agreed to pay $12.5 million dollars to settle claims that the automaker illegally sold location and driving data of hundreds of thousands of Californians, state officials said Friday.
The settlement is an example of how automakers are facing more scrutiny over allegations that they share driver data with the insurance industry, influencing how much people pay for coverage. California, though, has a law that bars insurers from using driving data to set rates.
“If we get word that a company is illegally collecting, storing or selling consumer data, we won’t hesitate to look under the hood and hold them accountable to the law,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a news conference.
The settlement is the largest California Consumer Privacy Act penalty in the state’s history, Bonta said.
The act gives California consumers the right to request that businesses disclose what data they collect. They can also opt out of the sharing or sale of their personal information and request that businesses delete their data.
Investigators found that from 2020 to 2024, GM sold driver data, including names, contact information, location data and driving behavior data, to data brokers Verisk Analytics Inc. and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The data came from a driver’s use of OnStar, which is owned by GM and provides roadside assistance, navigation and other services.
GM said the agreement addresses a product called OnStar Smart Driver that the company discontinued in 2024. The product was meant to help improve people’s driving but faced privacy concerns from consumers. In 2024, GM also ended its partnership with the two data brokers and said it would enhance privacy controls.
“Vehicle connectivity is central to a modern and safe driving experience, which is why we’re committed to being clear and transparent with our customers about our practices and the choices and control they have over their information,” a GM spokesperson said in a statement.
Various district attorneys throughout the state, including in Los Angeles and San Francisco, were involved in the investigation and settlement.
Technology has been playing a bigger role in the auto industry, but the data collected from drivers can reveal personal information about people’s daily habits, including where they drop off their kids and doctor visits.
The California Privacy Protection Agency in 2023 started investigating the privacy practices of connected cars. As the state was looking into the automakers, the New York Times reported in 2024 that GM was sharing consumer driving behavior with insurance companies. Nationwide, GM reportedly made roughly $20 million from selling data to Verisk and LexisNexis.
The state’s privacy protection agency has taken action against other automakers before. Ford Motor Company was fined $375,703 in March and Honda was fined $632,500 in 2025 for privacy violations.
Under the GM settlement, which still needs court approval, the automaker would delete any driving data the company kept within 180 days and request that the two data brokers do the same. They would also stop selling driving data to consumer reporting agencies for five years and develop a privacy program that includes assessing and mitigating the risks of data collected from OnStar.
California’s settlement with GM came after the Federal Trade Commission in 2025 also took action against the automaker and OnStar for its privacy practices, barring them from disclosing location and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years.
Business
Trump’s Latest Tariff Setback Looms Over China Talks
A day after a federal court ruled against President Trump’s latest global tariffs, his administration returned to the drawing board on Friday, trying to preserve its powers to wage economic warfare in time for high-stakes trade talks with China.
The latest legal blow concerned the 10 percent tariff that Mr. Trump imposed in late February on nearly all U.S. imports. The president unveiled that policy as a sort of temporary fix, after the Supreme Court tossed out his initial duties, but a panel of judges once again found that the White House had run afoul of the law.
The result was a familiar set of headaches for Mr. Trump, who has tried repeatedly — and with mixed success — to stretch his authority to tax imports without the express permission of Congress. By Friday, one of the president’s top aides signaled that an appeal was imminent, echoing the president, who told reporters shortly after the ruling that he would simply “do it a different way.”
Technically, the Court of International Trade only declared the president’s across-the-board, 10 percent tariff to be illegal. Otherwise, it did not issue an order forcing the government to stop collecting it from all importers, at least for now. Still, the outcome marked both a political and legal setback for Mr. Trump, who had spent much of the week issuing trade threats against Europe and preparing for talks in China.
Tariffs are expected to be a major topic on the agenda when Mr. Trump travels to Beijing to meet next week with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. Trade experts said the court decision could undercut the president’s leverage. Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell University, said the ruling “severely handicapped” the administration’s ability to employ tariffs against foreign nations, leaving Mr. Trump with a “much weaker bargaining hand” when it comes to China.
“Any threats by Trump to hit China with broader and higher tariffs if Xi doesn’t bend to his will on economic and geopolitical matters now seem like empty bluster rather than credible ultimatums,” he said.
One of the president’s top trade advisers, Jamieson Greer, appeared to brush aside some of those concerns on Friday. During an interview on Fox Business, he criticized the court for ruling against the White House, claiming that some of the judges on the panel were “apparently just hellbent on importing more from China.”
Mr. Greer, who defended the president’s use of trade powers, added that the administration is “confident on appeal we’ll be successful.”
At the heart of the matter is Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke a trade power that no president had ever used. Known as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, it permits the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent for 150 days, but only in response to strict conditions, including a “balance of payments” crisis.
The term itself reflects a bygone concern from the time the law was adopted, when the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold, creating unique economic risks. But the Trump administration sought to argue that the law still applied today, pointing in part to the country’s persistent trade deficit, a different measurement, which reflects the gap between U.S. imports and exports.
In the end, a majority of judges on the Court of International Trade found the argument unpersuasive and sided with small businesses and states that had sued. It marked the second time that some of those challengers had prevailed against Mr. Trump, after they convinced the Supreme Court to invalidate his earlier use of emergency powers to impose withering tariffs.
The new decision raised the odds that the administration could soon have to pay back the billions of dollars collected from its 10 percent tariff, on top of the $166 billion that the government already owes to U.S. importers from its last legal defeat. But the fight appeared far from over, and much remained uncertain by Friday — not just for American businesses, which paid the cost to import goods, but for the Trump administration itself.
“President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. “The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing.”
For one thing, the court only appeared to bar the collection of the president’s 10 percent tariff for some of the plaintiffs that sued, many legal experts said. That raised the odds that droves of U.S. businesses could soon mobilize and “file a court case” of their own asking for similar relief, said Ted Murphy, a top trade lawyer at the law firm Sidley Austin. He added that he also expected the trade court to pause implementation of its order pending an appeal.
The timing is important to Mr. Trump, who had always envisioned his across-the-board tariff as a stopgap that would allow the government time to prepare a set of more lasting rates using another set of authorities, known as Section 301. But that process was widely expected to take months, since the law requires the government to conduct investigations into other countries’ trade practices before Mr. Trump can apply new duties.
Those inquiries targeting dozens of countries are well underway, and the president at times has suggested the final rates could be set at new highs. Some experts believe the tariffs imposed using Section 301 could be more legally durable, though the administration could still face lawsuits over his aggressive use of the law.
Michael Lowell, the chair of the global regulatory enforcement group at the law firm Reed Smith, said the White House probably would not have to worry about “a broad attack on that authority.” But, he said, the courts had recently drawn something of a line in the sand, suggesting they would be “very skeptical of the administration looking to the past and finding and repurposing” other powers to advance its trade agenda.
Unlike the president’s other trade gambits, he has successfully applied tariffs in the past using Section 301, including on China. That left some analysts to conclude that Mr. Trump, while blemished, would still retain some leverage ahead of his trip to Beijing next week.
“Unless they have amnesia, China should remember quite vividly how during Trump’s first term, the U.S. imposed multiple rounds of tariffs under Section 301 on China during negotiations,” said Sarah Schuman, a former U.S. trade official who is now managing director at Beacon Global Strategies.
The administration still had multiple options “to increase tariffs on China in pretty short order,” she added.
Mr. Trump’s trip to China had been scheduled for April, but was delayed because of the war in Iran. U.S. officials have said their goals for the visit include establishing a “board of trade,” which would oversee commerce between the countries in an effort to balance trade and reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China
On Friday, Mr. Greer sketched out a long list of concerns that the administration planned to raise with its Chinese counterparts, from its adherence to past purchase agreements to its approach to artificial intelligence.
“There’s not really a situation where we go, we get China to change the way they govern, the way they manage their economy; that’s all baked into their system,” he said. “But I think there is a world where we find out where we can optimize trade between China and the U.S. to achieve more balance.”
-
Lifestyle3 minutes agoHe’s your ex, not your son. Unconditional love does not apply
-
Politics9 minutes agoCommentary: For all the chatter by mayoral candidates, can anyone fix L.A.’s enduring problems?
-
Sports21 minutes agoPrep talk: Southern Section Division 1 semifinals features matchup of boys’ volleyball powers
-
World33 minutes agoEurope Day: 40 years of ties between Spain and the European Union
-
News1 hour agoFrontier Airlines plane hits person on runway during takeoff at Denver airport
-
New York3 hours agoMan Dies in Subway Attack; Mamdani Orders Inquiry Into Suspect’s Release From Bellevue
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoPatchy dense fog turns to stronger thunderstorms for Metro Detroit to start the weekend
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoWhere to watch Pittsburgh Pirates vs San Francisco Giants: TV channel, start time, streaming for May 9