Connect with us

News

TikTok fails to halt law that could lead to US ban

Published

on

TikTok fails to halt law that could lead to US ban

A US appeals court on Friday upheld a law requiring TikTok’s owner ByteDance to sell the platform or face a ban next year, dealing a major blow to the Chinese company behind the video app.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden this year, orders TikTok to be banned in the country if the app does not divest from its parent by January 19 2025 — the day before Donald Trump is inaugurated as president.

The unanimous ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the law — which hits at the core of a hot-button national security issue involving China and received strong bipartisan support in Congress — was constitutional and did not violate First Amendment protections for free speech, as TikTok had claimed.

The “government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States,” the panel wrote.

The decision puts TikTok in a precarious position in one of its biggest markets, although the law’s political future is uncertain. On the campaign trail before his re-election, Trump said he opposed the platform’s ban and promised to “save” the app.

Advertisement

In an email to staff, TikTok chief executive Shou Zi Chew wrote that the next step would be to “seek an injunction of the ban, pending review by the US Supreme Court”, according to a person familiar with the matter. 

The law requires Apple and Google to remove the social media app, which is wildly popular among younger Generation Z users, from their app stores if a divestiture does not take place before the January deadline. It also bans the app from web-hosting services.

TikTok said after the ruling: “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue.

“Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people.”

US attorney-general Merrick Garland called the ruling “an important step in blocking the Chinese government from weaponising TikTok to collect sensitive information about millions of Americans, to covertly manipulate the content delivered to American audiences, and to undermine our national security”.

Advertisement

The Chinese embassy in Washington said the law would have “a serious impact on the online social platform used by half of Americans” and was a “blatant act of commercial robbery”.

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment. But Mike Waltz, the Florida lawmaker and incoming US national security adviser, told Fox Business Network that Trump “wants to save TikTok”.

“We absolutely need to allow the American people to have access to that app, but we have to protect our data as well,” said Waltz, who has in the past called for TikTok to be banned.

Waltz added that Trump’s stance was to “allow the American people to have full access to what is a great product, but at the same time protect their data”. Marco Rubio, the Florida senator and China hawk who Trump has nominated as his secretary of state, has also supported banning TikTok.

In May, TikTok and ByteDance sued the US government to block the bill, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated First Amendment protections for free speech. TikTok has denied China’s government has any control over the app or that it has handed over any data to Beijing. Its lawyers also argued concerns about propaganda on the app should be handled by requiring disclosures, rather than a blanket divest-or-ban law.

Advertisement

US officials have argued ByteDance could be compelled to share the personal information of the 170mn US TikTok users with officials in Beijing under Chinese law, and wield the app’s algorithms and moderation to spread propaganda and misinformation. The DoJ earlier this year alleged some of TikTok’s US user data had been stored in China.

The court on Friday said the government’s national security “justifications” for the law were “compelling”. China “poses a particularly significant hybrid commercial threat” because of the statutes governing Chinese companies, the judges said, adding Beijing also “uses its cyber capabilities to support its influence campaigns around the world”.

China has “positioned itself to manipulate public discourse on TikTok in order to serve its own ends”, the judges wrote. Its “ability to do so is at odds with free speech fundamentals”.

The judges recognised their ruling “has significant implications” for the app and its users. But they argued that “burden is attributable to [China’s] hybrid commercial threat to US national security”, rather than the US government, which “engaged with TikTok through a multiyear process in an effort to find an alternative solution”.

TikTok has complained that much of the US government’s evidence is classified, meaning it has not had the opportunity to rebuff the claims about it, and argued a sale would be “unfeasible”.

Advertisement

Beijing has publicly said it would not allow the divestiture of the platform’s recommendations algorithm by ByteDance, and has export control laws that would block such a spin-off. Biden could also extend the ban-or-sale deadline by 90 days.

Before his re-election, Trump said he would not ban TikTok upon his return to the White House, in an attempt to preserve “competition” in a market dominated by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, which the president-elect has described as an “enemy of the people”.

It is unclear exactly how he could save the app. Experts suggested he could tell Congress to repeal the law, or press the DoJ not to enforce it.

Any move would represent a U-turn from 2020, when then-president Trump issued an executive order to block the app in the US and gave ByteDance 90 days to divest from its American assets and any data that TikTok had collected in the US. That order was blocked by the courts and ultimately revoked by Biden.

Shares in TikTok rivals Meta and Snap, whose revenues have been threatened by the app’s rapid rise in recent years, both rose about 2 per cent on the news.

Advertisement

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Explosion at Lumber Mill in Searsmont, Maine, Draws Large Emergency Response

Published

on

Explosion at Lumber Mill in Searsmont, Maine, Draws Large Emergency Response

An explosion and fire drew a large emergency response on Friday to a lumber mill in the Midcoast region of Maine, officials said.

The State Police and fire marshal’s investigators responded to Robbins Lumber in Searsmont, about 72 miles northeast of Portland, said Shannon Moss, a spokeswoman for the Maine Department of Public Safety.

Mike Larrivee, the director of the Waldo County Regional Communications Center, said the number of victims was unknown, cautioning that “the information we’re getting from the scene is very vague.”

“We’ve sent every resource in the county to that area, plus surrounding counties,” he said.

Footage from the scene shared by WABI-TV showed flames burning through the roof of a large structure as heavy, dark smoke billowed skyward.

Advertisement

The Associated Press reported that at least five people were injured, and that county officials were considering the incident a “mass casualty event.”

Catherine Robbins-Halsted, an owner and vice president at Robbins Lumber, told reporters at the scene that all of the company’s employees had been accounted for.

Gov. Janet T. Mills of Maine said on social media that she had been briefed on the situation and urged people to avoid the area.

“I ask Maine people to join me in keeping all those affected in their thoughts,” she said.

Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, said on social media that he was aware of the fire and explosion.

Advertisement

“As my team and I seek out more information, I am praying for the safety and well-being of first responders and everyone else on-site,” he said.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending