Connect with us

News

A TikTok ban could hit the U.S. in days. What to know — and how to prepare

Published

on

A TikTok ban could hit the U.S. in days. What to know — and how to prepare

The Supreme Court is considering whether to block a law that effectively bans TikTok in the U.S. starting Jan. 19.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The fate of TikTok — and its 170 million American users — hangs in the balance, as the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of a law that would ban the platform in the country if its China-based owner, ByteDance, doesn’t sell off its U.S. operation by Jan. 19.

If the court upholds the law — as a lower court did last month — TikTok’s days in the country would be numbered.

“On January 19th, as I understand it, we shut down,” TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco told justices during oral arguments on Friday.

Advertisement

That doesn’t mean the viral video app will automatically disappear from peoples’ phones, or that individuals will risk punishment just for logging in.

But it will get harder for the platform’s users in the U.S. to access the app, says Kate Ruane, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology (which joined an amicus brief supporting TikTok and its users’ protected speech).

“I think the biggest obvious result of this law going into effect is that … it’s going to require more technical savvy to access TikTok,” Ruane told NPR. “And that in and of itself is going to be too big of a barrier for lots and lots of people to continue to access TikTok, or to continue to try to use TikTok as a service.”

TikTok officials say it is possible that on Jan. 19, when U.S. users try to open the app, a prompt will show up indicating the service is no longer available in the country. This is what happens when someone tries to launch TikTok in India, which banned the app in 2020. 

It’s also possible users will be able to access the app but it may be buggy, operate slowly or crash often, the TikTok official said.

Advertisement

Here’s what could happen and how to prepare.

Fine print: How the law would actually work 

The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which President Biden signed into law in April 2024,, grants the government the authority to ban foreign-owned apps that it deems a threat to national security.

The bill passed with considerable bipartisan support, as many lawmakers worry that the Chinese government could access Americans’ data — through TikTok’s parent company — and use it to surveil them, spread misinformation and sway public opinion.

While the law concerns TikTok, it actually targets the companies that make the platform accessible in the U.S., including app stores like Apple’s App Store and Google Play, and cloud service providers like Oracle.

The fine print makes it illegal for any such entities to “distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application” either through a marketplace or internet hosting services.

Advertisement

In mid-December, Democrats on a House committee dealing with competition between the U.S. and China sent letters to the CEOs of Apple and Google warning the companies to take steps to ensure they can “fully comply with this requirement” by the deadline — which would have an immediate impact on users.

“If you already have [TikTok] on your phone, it’s not going to disappear from your phone on January 19th or January 20th,” Ruane says. “It will, however, very likely disappear from application stores.”

That means users will no longer be able to download the app or any updated versions of it.

And without the ability to update, the platform won’t be able to fix bugs, add features or address security concerns. Eventually, Ruane says, it may also become incompatible with the operating system of certain phones.

“Over time … the service that you get with the application will be worse and worse and worse,” she adds, though it’s too soon to tell whether that will be a matter of days, weeks or months.

Advertisement

Action items: Preparations and potential workarounds for TikTok users 

As Jan. 19 and the potential TikTok ban approach, experts like Ruane recommend that users download their data and save any videos that they want to be able to access in the future.

“The other thing is to remember that even after this law takes effect, if it does, it will not be illegal for them to continue to use TikTok if they have it on their phones already — or even if they manage to acquire it from some other source than an app store,” she says. “This law will not apply to individual people accessing TikTok.”

One of the most-discussed workarounds is something called a virtual private network, or VPN, which encrypts users’ location data and makes it look like they are accessing content from another country.

They are commonly used in countries with strict internet restrictions to access blocked social media platforms, streaming services and other geographically limited content.

“Even as the application degrades on your phone, you may still be able to access it through a virtual private network on a web browser,” Ruane says.

Advertisement

There are also ways to download TikTok outside the Google and Apple app stores, through processes respectively known as “sideloading” and “jailbreaking.”

But they’re not without potential complications or consequences: Apple, for example, won’t honor warranties for jailbroken iPhones. Ruane thinks the extra steps will deter many TikTok users.

“It is a barrier to accessing the application and it is also something that you would have to weigh, like ‘Is it really worth it to me to access TikTok, to do all of this or learn how to do all of these required technical things?’” she says. “And I think for a fair number of users who are just casually using the application, the answer will probably be no.”

Uncertainties: How the Trump administration could fight a ban  

It’s no coincidence that the potential ban would take effect on Jan. 19, the last full day of Biden’s term. That puts the ball in the court of President-elect Donald Trump, who has his own strong views on TikTok.

While Trump previously disparaged the app as a national security threat and even tried to ban it during his first term, he has since become a staunch defender of the platform and even asked the Supreme Court last month to pause the start date of the law in question.

Advertisement

As Ruane sees it, Trump has three choices for how to proceed once in office, and all of them are complicated.

For one, he could try to convince Congress to repeal the original 2024 law that requires ByteDance to divest TikTok, which both the House and Senate passed with overwhelming support.

“That’s pretty straightforward, but it’s also politically incredibly difficult to do because it would require the changing of votes for many, many, many members of Congress,” Ruane says.

Trump’s second option is to direct the Justice Department and attorney general to not enforce the law, essentially giving Google, Apple and others the option to continue providing services to TikTok.

But Ruane says that’s also easier said than done, as lawyers within those companies would still see — and likely seek to avoid — “gigantic legal risk” in flouting the law, which includes hefty penalties.

Advertisement

“So if anybody uses your service to access TikTok and you are in violation of the law, it’s $5,000 per person that does that,” Ruane says. “If you were to take the president up on his offer and continue to provide services to TikTok, even though you’re technically in violation of the law, that’s $5,000 times hundreds of millions of people.”

The third potential option has been posited by Alan Rozenshtein, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and research director at Lawfare. As he told NPR’s Fresh Air in December, Trump could “just declare that the law no longer applies.”

Trump could choose to use his broad authority under the statute to determine that ByteDance has engaged in a “qualified divestiture” of TikTok after all, as long as it has taken certain steps to that effect.

“There’s a scenario in which ByteDance could move some papers around, shift some assets from one corporation to another corporation, do some fancy legal work, and that would give Trump enough, basically, cover to declare that TikTok is no longer controlled by ByteDance,” Rozenshtein said.

That’s not an airtight approach either, Ruane says, since it could be challenged in court either by competitors or the entities involved.

Advertisement

One option under discussion among TikTok stakeholders is bringing back a national security agreement known as Project Texas, which involves tapping Austin-based Oracle to host all U.S. user data. Oracle would also oversee all data flows between TikTok’s U.S. operation and Beijing. The plan would also allow the federal government to invoke a “kill switch” that would shut down TikTok if terms of the agreement were violated.

The deal initially had support in the Biden administration, but talks stalled. People close to talks about TikTok’s future say it is possible Trump brings Project Texas back, with Trump potentially determining that the agreement makes TikTok in compliance with the divest-or-ban law.

At the end of the day, Ruane says it’s unclear what, if anything, Trump may do to try to bring back TikTok — an app she says is “not immediately replaceable,” even as new and existing platforms are sure to vie for its many displaced users.

NPR’s Bobby Allyn contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

Published

on

Special Counsel Report Says Trump Would Have Been Convicted in Election Case

Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted President-elect Donald J. Trump on charges of seeking to cling to power after losing the 2020 election, said in a final report released early Tuesday morning that he believed the evidence was sufficient to convict Mr. Trump in a trial if his success in the 2024 election had not made it impossible for the prosecution to continue.

“The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He continued: “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

The Justice Department delivered the 137-page volume — representing half of Mr. Smith’s overall final report, with the volume about the classified documents case still confidential — to Congress just after midnight Tuesday morning.

The report, obtained by The New York Times, amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a president-elect, capping a momentous legal saga that saw the man now poised to regain the powers of the nation’s highest office charged with crimes that struck at the heart of American democracy. And although Mr. Smith resigned as special counsel late last week, his recounting of the case also served as a reminder of the vast array of evidence and detailed accounting of Mr. Trump’s actions that he had marshaled.

Advertisement

The partial release came only a day after the judge in Florida who oversaw Mr. Trump’s other federal case — the one accusing him of mishandling classified documents — issued a ruling allowing a portion of the material to be made public. But the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump himself, also barred the Justice Department from immediately releasing — even to Congress — a second volume of the report concerning the documents case.

For more than a week, Mr. Trump’s lawyers — who were shown a draft copy of Mr. Smith’s report in advance of its release — denounced it as little more than an “attempted political hit job which sole purpose is to disrupt the presidential transition.” At least one Trump ally, the former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, has come forward to complain that he, too, might be implicated in the report as an unindicted co-conspirator in the election interference case.

In August 2023, Mr. Smith charged Mr. Trump in Federal District Court in Washington with three intersecting conspiracy counts accusing him of plotting to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Mr. Smith also filed a separate indictment in Florida, charging Mr. Trump with illegally holding on to classified documents after he left office and conspiring with two co-defendants to obstruct the government’s repeated effort to retrieve them.

But after Mr. Trump won the 2024 election, Mr. Smith dropped the cases because of a Justice Department policy that prohibits prosecuting sitting presidents. Under a separate department regulation, he turned in a final report about both cases — one volume on each — to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.

Last week, the Justice Department said Mr. Garland planned to hold off on issuing the volume about the classified documents case until all legal proceedings related to Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants were completed.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, fought the release by obtaining an initial injunction last week from Judge Cannon, who had dismissed the classified documents case last summer.

In her order on Monday, Judge Cannon told the defense and prosecution to appear before her on Friday in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., to argue over the department’s plan to release the classified-documents volume to Congress.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Continue Reading

News

Los Angeles braces for ‘explosive fire growth’ as high winds near

Published

on

Los Angeles braces for ‘explosive fire growth’ as high winds near

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Los Angeles was braced for near “hurricane force” winds on Monday that weather forecasters said could fan the devastating wildfires that have swept across southern California as damage estimates mounted.

As firefighters struggled to contain the deadly blazes that continued to rage in the suburbs of the US’s second-largest city, the National Weather Service issued a “red flag alert” warning amid deteriorating conditions.

Winds of up to 75 miles an hour were expected to hit the region from Monday night until Wednesday morning, according to the NWS, combining with extremely dry conditions to create “critical fire weather”.

Advertisement

“The National Weather Service is predicting close to hurricane-force level winds, and so we’re making urgent preparations,” LA mayor Karen Bass said on Monday. “My top priority, and the priority of everyone else, is to do everything we can to protect lives as these winds approach.”

Authorities have since last Tuesday battled blazes that have burnt more than 40,000 acres of land. California governor Gavin Newsom warned the fires could become the costliest disaster in US history as he clashed with president-elect Donald Trump over the state’s response.

The cause of the fires has not yet been determined, but several lawsuits were filed against utility Southern California Edison on Monday alleging it had failed to properly shut off power lines despite warnings, leading to the outbreak of the Eaton fire.

Shares in its parent Edison International fell 11.9 per cent on Monday.

A Southern California Edison spokesperson said: “SCE understands that a lawsuit related to the Eaton fire has been filed but has not yet been served with the complaint,” adding that the company “will review the complaint when it is received. The cause of the fire continues to be under investigation.”

Advertisement

Insurance stocks were also hit as anticipated damages mounted. Wells Fargo analysts estimated insurance losses could top $30bn and potentially reach as much as $40bn. On Friday, JPMorgan analysts had pencilled in an industry-wide hit of $20bn, a level that would already have been the largest in the state’s history.

On Monday, Newsom said he was proposing $2.5bn in additional emergency funding to aid LA in the recovery, clean-up and reopening of schools. “California is organising a Marshall Plan to help Los Angeles rebuild faster and stronger,” he said in a statement. The funding will need to be approved by the state legislature.

The largest of the outbreaks, the Pacific Palisades fire, was just 14 per cent contained late on Monday, prompting fears that strong gusts in the coming days would reverse progress in combating the blazes.

The weather service warned that “extreme fire danger” would continue until Wednesday and said that the category of alert in place — a “particularly dangerous situation red flag warning” — was reserved for “extreme of the extreme fire weather scenarios”.

“In other words, this set-up is about as bad as it gets,” the NWS warned as it cautioned powerful winds could create “explosive fire growth”.

Advertisement

The death toll hit 24 on Monday, officials said, and was expected to climb as authorities combed through the wreckage in search of missing people.

Firefighters work to clear a firebreak on a hillside covered with retardant in an attempt to contain the Palisades fire © Ringo Chiu/Reuters

The disaster has spilled over into the political arena, with Trump on Sunday attacking the state’s authorities for failing to halt the destruction. “The fires are still raging in L.A. The incompetent pols have no idea how to put them out,” he posted on his Truth Social network.

The incoming Republican president has accused California’s governor, a Democrat, of depleting water reserves to protect an endangered species of fish, and of refusing to sign a “water restoration declaration”. Newsom’s office said no such declaration exists.

“That mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us,” Newsom told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, noting he had invited the president-elect to visit affected areas but had yet to receive a response. “Responding to Donald Trump’s insults, we would spend another month.”

Meanwhile, city officials warned against price gougers who have increased prices for rental properties as thousands of people fled their homes.

Advertisement

LAist, a local news site, found a Zillow listing for a furnished home in Bel Air going for $29,500 a month — 86 per cent higher than in September.

Cartography by Steven Bernard

Continue Reading

News

What Causes California Fires? Power Lines Can Be a Contributor.

Published

on

What Causes California Fires? Power Lines Can Be a Contributor.

Investigators are still working to identify what caused the spate of fires that ignited around Los Angeles last week, but residents are concerned that electrical infrastructure may have sparked at least one of them.

Since 1992, more than 3,600 wildfires in California have been related to power generation, transmission and distribution, according to data from the U.S. Forest Service. Some of the most destructive fires have been traced back to problems with utility poles and power lines.

Extent of power line fires near Los Angeles

Roughly a dozen power line fires have burned more than 200,000 acres in areas northwest of the city since 1970.

Source: CalFire

Extents of recent fires, as of Jan. 13, are outlined in black.

Advertisement

By The New York Times

CalFire releases data on past large wildfires and determines their causes in different natural and human-related categories, such as lightning or arson. The agency lists more than 12,500 fires since the late 1800s, though the causes of more than half are unknown or unidentified.

Lightning and use of equipment are among the most common known causes, but over the past few decades, the share of fires known to be caused by power infrastructure has grown across the state.

The 20 most destructive California wildfires

At least eight of California’s most destructive wildfires had power-related causes. Those fires are shown in bold.

Advertisement

Source: CalFire

By The New York Times

Residents of Altadena, Calif., sued Southern California Edison on Monday, saying the utility’s electrical equipment set off the Eaton fire, which has burned more than 13,000 acres and 5,000 structures in the city and neighboring areas. The company has said it is investigating the fire’s origin.

Advertisement

Power distribution lines were found to have caused some of California’s largest-ever fires in recent years.

The Thomas fire in 2017 was started when high winds forced Southern California Edison’s power lines to collide, a situation known as “line slap.” Burning material fell to the ground in the Upper Anlauf Canyon, about 35 miles from the current Palisades fire, and the resulting fire burned for almost 40 days.

The 2018 Camp fire, in Northern California, started when an electrical arc between one of Pacific Gas & Electric’s power lines and a steel tower sent molten metal onto the underlying vegetation. That fire claimed more than 80 lives and destroyed over 18,000 structures.

In the summer of 2021, California’s largest single-source wildfire, the Dixie fire, started when a tree made contact with several of PG&E’s distribution lines near the Cresta Dam in Northern California. Electricity continued flowing in one of the lines, which started the fire, and nearly a million acres across four counties burned.

California isn’t the only state dealing with power-related wildfires in recent years. Texas’ largest wildfire, the Smokehouse Creek fire, burned over a million acres in 2024. Xcel Energy accepted responsibility for the fire after investigators found that high winds had broken a utility pole, causing a power line to fall and ignite the dried grasses below.

Advertisement

Similar situations have caused wildfires in Oregon as well. The 2020 Labor Day fires destroyed thousands of homes and killed at least nine people, in part, after power wasn’t shut down during high winds.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending