Connect with us

Politics

A theme in GOP attack ads in California House races: Linking Democrats to pedophiles over support for LGBTQ group

Published

on

A theme in GOP attack ads in California House races: Linking Democrats to pedophiles over support for LGBTQ group

A not-so-subtle theme has emerged in recent Republican attack ads in battleground California congressional races: linking Democrats to pedophiles.

Take, for instance, the 30-second spot from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking Democrat George Whitesides, the former NASA chief of staff who is challenging GOP Rep. Mike Garcia in the Antelope Valley in one of the nation’s most hotly contested races.

Melancholy piano music plays over images of an upturned bicycle and a set of empty playground swings. The camera cuts to a computer tablet displaying a messaging app.

“I’m literally the next block over. Come chill!” writes a user nicknamed SKTRDUDE293.

“ON MY WAY!!!” responds a girl, who looks about 12, with the user name SWIFFTIEE661.

Advertisement

The tablet is propped up in a cozy-looking bedroom next to a lava lamp, a mascara tube and a framed portrait of the girl and her dog. The camera lingers on the girl’s face before showing her photograph taped to a wall next to pictures of other kids in a dark, dingy-looking room where a laptop — apparently belonging to a child predator — has the same chat open.

“George Whitesides funded a group opposing pedophiles registering as sex offenders,” text on the ad says, referencing Equality California, one of the state’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organizations.

Another ad targeting state Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, says that, because of legislation Min supported, “sex predators, including the creeps that victimize children, roam free.” The ad says Min is “endorsed by a group that helps sex offenders” — another reference to Equality California.

Sponsors of the advertisements say the focus on child sex crimes, while uncomfortable, accurately portray Democrats — and those who endorse them — as soft on crime. But critics say the ads are both inaccurate and offensive, based on homophobic and transphobic misconceptions about LGBTQ+ people preying upon children.

“This is the same playbook that right-wing extremists and their allies have used for decades, perpetuating the harmless and baseless stereotype that LGBTQ+ folks are inherently pedophiles,” said Tony Hoang, the executive director of Equality California.

Advertisement

An unprecedented amount of money — with some projections as high as $17 billion — is being spent on political advertising nationwide in this election cycle, said Steve Caplan, an adjunct instructor of public relations and advertising at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

“Crime and immigration typically are issues that have been used on the Republican side to affect elections, particularly in highly competitive districts,” he said.

The ads — which Caplan called an “attempt to shock voters” — indicate that Republicans see these House races as must-win contests, he said, because “media costs in Southern California are hugely expensive.”

California is home to 10 competitive House races that will shape which party controls Congress, making the state a consequential battleground this year.

Whitesides is a first-time candidate with no voting record to scrutinize. So, Republicans have zeroed in on his hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to progressive candidates and causes, including Equality California. The group advocates for legislation advancing LGBTQ+ rights and works to elect candidates who support its mission.

Advertisement

Equality California, along with the L.A. County district attorney’s office, co-sponsored the controversial 2020 California Senate Bill 145, which was intended to end discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in sex crimes involving a minor and a young adult.

The law, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed, allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the teenager.

Before SB 145, an adult convicted under those circumstances was automatically added to the state’s sex offender registry, while an adult convicted of vaginal sex with a minor was not.

Proponents said SB 145 would address the disparity in state law that was a remnant of California’s old anti-sodomy laws, many since repealed, and that it would give judges more discretion to determine appropriate punishment when two people close in age — a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old, for example — are in a sexual relationship.

“SB 145 makes sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, nothing more or nothing less,” Hoang said.

Advertisement

The bill faced strong pushback from Republicans in the state Legislature, with some opponents using it to falsely claim that California was legalizing pedophilia. The recent attack ads have latched on to the controversy that roiled the state Capitol four years ago.

Republican Rep. Mike Garcia, left, is being challenged for reelection by Democrat George Whitesides, right, in California’s 27th Congressional District in the Antelope Valley

(AP)

Ben Petersen, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that Whitesides “might not like voters hearing he bankrolled soft-on-crime groups, but the facts are clear as day. From zero cash bail to lower penalties for criminals including sex offenders, Whitesides’ money backed it all.”

Advertisement

Equality California endorsed a 2020 ballot measure that sought, unsuccessfully, to end the use of cash bail in California.

Whitesides’ campaign manager, Emma Harris, said in a statement that “as a father of two kids, 12 and 14, George puts the safety of his family before all else.”

“It comes as no surprise that Congressman Mike Garcia and his far-right friends are lying once again — because he knows he’s losing this race,” Harris said, adding that “unfortunately for the GOP, these baseless attacks on Democrats up and down the state won’t work, and voters will see right through these lies.”

Whitesides’ new ad emphasizes his support from parents and families, with one woman embracing two children and saying, “The lies they’re telling about George are disgusting.” The ad closes with Whitesides standing beside his daughter.

In a statement, Garcia noted that his campaign “has no control over third party commercials, but voters are now finding out the real George Whitesides.”

Advertisement

“He doesn’t have a long history in our district,” Garcia wrote, “so follow who he supports to know who he really is.” Among those Whitesides has supported, he added, are “radical groups that put our kids in danger.”

Whitesides’ support for Equality California also was highlighted in a new ad by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that supports Republicans running for the House and has reserved $27 million for TV and digital ads in the L.A. area this fall.

The new anti-Whitesides TV spot features a woman who says: “I just learned today that he’s a major donor of a group that sponsored legislation to lower penalties for pedophiles.”

Courtney Parella, a spokeswoman for the super PAC, said in a statement that the ad is fair game.

“These California liberals may be upset they got caught funding extreme political groups and backing radical policies, but the fact remains — these measures weakened penalties for sex offenders, put minors at risk, and made it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs,” she said.

Advertisement

The Congressional Leadership Fund also paid for the anti-Min ad that blasts his endorsement by Equality California. Min is running a tight race in the 47th Congressional District against Republican Scott Baugh, a Huntington Beach attorney who served in the California Assembly from 1995 to 2000.

The ad criticizes Min for voting in favor of the controversial California Senate Bill 357, which rescinded misdemeanor laws against loitering in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Advocates argued that it would stop law enforcement use of state loitering rules to disproportionately target Black, Latino and transgender Californians, while opponents said the bill would remove a crucial tool to stop sex trafficking, especially of children.

In the attack ad, a deep-voiced man, using a play on Min’s name, says: “Predators get minimal treatment. Abusive partners? They get the min. Child sex offenders? They get the min, too.”

Democratic state Sen. Dave Min and Republican Scott Baugh

Democratic state Sen. Dave Min, left, and Republican Scott Baugh, right, are running for California’s 47th Congressional District in Orange County

(Rich Pedroncelli / AP, Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Min said in a statement that he was endorsed by police officers and deputy sheriffs and is “proud of my strong record on public safety as a State Senator, including authoring more than a dozen bills to protect survivors of sexual assault and abuse.”

He said Republicans were “lying about my legislative record, which is one of the toughest on crime in the State Senate” and that the advertisement was “especially odious in that it uses my endorsement from Equality California … to propagate the bigoted and hateful myth that gay people are child predators and groomers.”

Jon Fleischman, a spokesman for Baugh’s campaign, declined to comment on the ad, noting that “we do not control outside group spending.”

In Riverside County, an attack ad against Democrat Will Rollins says he is “backed by radicals who gave billions in taxpayer-funded stimulus checks to convicted felons including terrorists and pedophiles.” It, too, includes images of an empty swing set.

Rollins, a former federal prosecutor, is trying to unseat Republican Rep. Ken Calvert in another extremely competitive race.

Advertisement

The ad is a reference to Democrats in Congress who voted for pandemic-era relief bills that resulted in stimulus checks being sent to prisoners. (Republicans supported such bills, too, but later tried to stop payments to inmates against Democratic opposition.)

The “radicals” referenced in the ad are Congressional Democrats who endorsed Rollins, said a spokesperson for the Americans 4 Security PAC, which paid for the spot and is largely funded by the oil and gas industry.

Coby Eiss, Rollins’ campaign manager, accused “Republican super PACs in Washington” of lying about Rollins’ stance on criminal justice.

“As a federal prosecutor, Will had a 99% conviction rate and worked hand-in-hand with law enforcement on a daily basis,” Eiss said in a statement.

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.

Politics

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

Published

on

Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era

Mark Zuckerberg kept the circle of people who knew his thinking small.

Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, tapped a handful of top policy and communications executives and others to discuss the company’s approach to online speech. He had decided to make sweeping changes after visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago over Thanksgiving. Now he needed his employees to turn those changes into policy.

Over the next few weeks, Mr. Zuckerberg and his handpicked team discussed how to do that in Zoom meetings, conference calls and late-night group chats. Some subordinates stole away from family dinners and holiday gatherings to work, while Mr. Zuckerberg weighed in between trips to his homes in the San Francisco Bay Area and the island of Kauai.

By New Year’s Day, Mr. Zuckerberg was ready to go public with the changes, according to four current and former Meta employees and advisers with knowledge of the events, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential discussions.

The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, most of Meta’s 72,000 employees learned of Mr. Zuckerberg’s plans along with the rest of the world. The Silicon Valley giant said it was overhauling speech on its apps by loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues such as immigration, gender and sexuality. It killed its fact-checking program that had been aimed at curbing misinformation and said it would instead rely on users to police falsehoods. And it said it would insert more political content into people’s feeds after previously de-emphasizing that very material.

In the days since, the moves — which have sweeping implications for what people will see online — have drawn applause from Mr. Trump and conservatives, derision from fact-checking groups and misinformation researchers, and concerns from L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy groups that fear the changes will lead to more people getting harassed online and offline.

Inside Meta, the reaction has been sharply divided. Some employees have celebrated the moves, while others were shocked and have openly castigated the changes on the company’s internal message boards. Several employees wrote that they were ashamed to work for Meta.

On Friday, Meta’s makeover continued when the company told employees that it would end its work on diversity, equity and inclusion. It eliminated its chief diversity officer role, ended its diversity hiring goals that called for the employment of a certain number of women and minorities, and said it would no longer prioritize minority-owned businesses when hiring vendors.

Meta planned to “focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background,” Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources, said in an internal post that was relayed to The New York Times.

Advertisement

In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.

Mr. Zuckerberg, 40, has regularly spoken to friends and colleagues, including Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and Meta board member, about concerns that progressives are policing speech, the people said. He has also felt railroaded by what he views as the Biden administration’s anti-tech posturing, and stung by what he sees as progressives in the media and in Silicon Valley — including in Meta’s work force — pushing him to take a heavy hand in policing discourse, they said.

Meta declined to comment.

In an interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday, Mr. Zuckerberg said it was time to go “back to our original mission” by giving people “the power to share.” He said he had felt pressured by the Biden administration and the media to “censor” certain content, adding, “I have a much greater command now of what I think the policy should be, and this is how it’s going to be going forward.”

The latest changes were catalyzed by Mr. Trump’s victory in November. That month, Mr. Zuckerberg flew to Florida to meet with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Meta later donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural fund.

Advertisement

At Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg began preparing to change speech policies. Knowing that any moves would be contentious, he assembled a team of no more than a dozen close advisers and lieutenants, including Joel Kaplan, a longtime policy executive with strong ties to the Republican Party; Kevin Martin, the head of U.S. policy; and David Ginsberg, the head of communications. Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on no leaks, the people with knowledge of the effort said.

The group worked on revising Meta’s “Hate Speech” policy, with Mr. Zuckerberg leading the charge, they said. They changed the name of the policy, which lays out what to do with slurs, threats against protected groups and other harmful content on its apps, to “Hateful Conduct.”

That effectively shifted the emphasis of the rules away from speech, minimizing Meta’s role in policing online conversation. Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Martin were cheerleaders of the changes, these people said.

Mr. Zuckerberg decided to promote Mr. Kaplan to Meta’s head of global public policy to carry out the changes and deepen Meta’s ties to the incoming Trump administration, replacing Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain who had handled policy and regulatory issues globally for Meta since 2018. The night before Meta’s announcement, Mr. Kaplan held individual calls with top conservative social media influencers, two people said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Zuckerberg made the new speech policies public in his Instagram video. Mr. Kaplan appeared on “Fox & Friends,” a mainstay of Mr. Trump’s media diet, saying Meta’s fact-checking partners “had too much political bias.”

Advertisement

(Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta have said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.)

Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. It also removed a rule that forbade users to say people of certain races were responsible for spreading the coronavirus.

Some training materials that Meta created for the new policies were confusing and contradictory, two employees who reviewed the documents said. Some of the text said saying that “white people have mental illness” would be prohibited on Facebook, but saying that “gay people have mental illness” was allowed, they said.

Meta locked access to the policies and training materials internally late on Thursday, they said, hours after The Intercept published excerpts.

The company also removed the transgender and nonbinary “themes” on its Messenger chat app, which allows users to customize the app’s colors and wallpaper, two employees said. The change was reported earlier by 404 Media.

Advertisement

That same day at Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said.

Some employees were livid at what they saw as efforts by executives to hide changes to the “Hateful Conduct” policy before it was announced, two people said. While people across the policy division typically view and comment on significant revisions, most did not have the opportunity this time.

On Workplace, Meta’s Slack-like internal communications software, employees began arguing over the changes. In the @Pride employee resource group, where workers who support L.G.B.T.Q. issues convene, at least one person announced their resignation as others privately relayed to one another that they planned to look for jobs elsewhere, two people said.

In a post this week to the @Pride group, Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer, defended Mr. Zuckerberg and said topics like transgender issues had become politicized. He said Meta’s policies should not get in the way of allowing societal debate and pointed to Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, as an example of “courts getting ahead of society” in the 1970s. Mr. Schultz said the courts had “politicized” the issue instead of allowing it to be debated civically.

“You find topics become politicized and stay in the political conversation for far longer than they would’ve if society just debated them out,” Mr. Schultz wrote. He said looser restrictions on speech in Meta’s apps would allow for this kind of debate.

Advertisement

Mr. Zuckerberg traveled to Palm Beach, Fla., this week, four people with knowledge of his activities said, and on Friday was said to have been at Mar-a-Lago.

In his interview with Mr. Rogan, Mr. Zuckerberg denied making sweeping changes to appease the incoming Trump administration, but said the election did influence his thinking.

“The good thing about doing it after the election is you get to take this cultural pulse,” he said. “We got to this point where there were these things that you couldn’t say that were just mainstream discourse.”

Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield

Published

on

'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield

FIRST ON FOX: Newly sworn-in Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, in his first letter as a member of the Senate, sent a blistering inquiry to the Department of Homeland Security demanding answers on the extension of deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from a slew of countries.

“I write to express my sincere concerns regarding the extensions of the designations of El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”),” Moreno wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Friday. “These 18-month extensions allow these noncitizens to remain in the United States through the Fall of 2026, when the designations were set to expire.”

“These decisions were shamefully made by an outgoing administration ten days before President Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office. One would think that after handedly losing the 2024 Presidential Election when voters overwhelmingly rejected the Biden-Harris Administration’s open-border policy, that you would finally understand American citizens’ mandate. And yet, you continue to completely disregard the will of the majority of voters, by unilaterally deciding to allow nearly 1 million noncitizens who entered our country without original authorization to remain in the United States.”

DHS announced on Friday it is extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Venezuela, Sudan and Ukraine for an additional 18 months beyond their current expirations.

RED STATE AGS WELCOME TRUMP CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AFTER FOUR YEARS BATTLING BIDEN

Advertisement

Senator Bernie Moreno, left, and President Joe Biden, right (Getty)

TPS grants protection from deportation and work permits for nationals living in the U.S. from countries deemed unsafe for them to be returned. DHS cited environmental disasters in El Salvador, including storms and heavy rainfall, that it said resulted in a “substantial, but temporary” disruption of living conditions. It also cited the political and economic crises in Venezuela, political instability in Sudan and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with Russia.

In his letter to Secretary Mayorkas, Moreno criticized the government’s rationale for the move.

“I am also deeply disgusted by your attempts to justify these decisions,” Moreno wrote. “For example, according to your Department, the extension of the TPS status of 234,000 noncitizens is due to “geological and weather events” in El Salvador. However, a quick review of the current weather in San Salvador, El Salvador currently shows that it is “mostly sunny” and 81 degrees Fahrenheit.”

NEW REPORT REVEALS MASSIVE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BENEFITING FROM BIDEN-HARRIS ADMIN’S ‘QUIET AMNESTY’

Advertisement
Mayorkas Senate

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speaks during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee hearing on the department’s budget request on Capitol Hill on April 18, 2024  (Getty Images)

The moves do not redesignate countries for the status, meaning only those currently protected by TPS are eligible for an extension and no new applications can be received. Venezuela’s extension will apply to approximately 600,000 nationals; El Salvador’s will apply to 232,000; Ukraine’s will apply to approximately 103,000; and Sudan will affect about 1,900 nationals. Venezuela’s extension will run until October 2026, and El Salvador’s will run until September 2026, with both having been scheduled to end in the spring of 2025.

The moves, particularly for El Salvador and Venezuela, could complicate efforts by the Trump administration to deport illegal immigrants from those countries. Venezuelan nationals have been a particular focus, given the rise of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, while El Salvador is where the MS-13 gang originated.

Moreno’s letter asked Mayorkas to provide answers to a series of questions, some of them related to the concerns about MS-13. 

“What is the current number of MS-13 members known to be in the United States?” Moreno asked. ” What is the current number of TdA members known to be in the United States? How many of the noncitizens suspected of being associated with MS-13 and/or TdA have remained in this country through a TPS designation?”

The letter also asks for sourcing and data related to the “geological and weather events” cited by the government as well as information about the vetting process for these individuals and answers about how the government is ensuring that these migrants will not commit crimes in the United States. 

Advertisement

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the White House but did not receive an immediate response.

The first Trump administration moved to cut down on the number of countries designated for TPS, but the Biden administration has used it broadly, designating or redesignating a number of countries, including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti. There are currently 17 countries designated for TPS.

Both President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have indicated they want to cut back on TPS once in office, specifically for Haiti.

Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw contributed to this report

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court casts doubt on TikTok's free-speech defense as shutdown law is set to take effect

Published

on

Supreme Court casts doubt on TikTok's free-speech defense as shutdown law is set to take effect

The Supreme Court justices sounded highly skeptical Friday of TikTok’s free-speech defense, signaling they are not likely to strike down the law that could shut down the popular video site the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress was concerned with the Chinese ownership of TikTok and the threat to national security. They also said the law in question was not an effort to restrict the freedom of speech.

“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “Congress is not fine with a foreign adversary gathering all this data on 170 million Americans. … Are we supposed to ignore the fact that its parent company is subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”

He said he knew of no court precedent that would call for striking down such a law on 1st Amendment grounds.

In their comments and questions, all the justices appeared to agree.

Advertisement

“This law is targeted at a foreign corporation that doesn’t have 1st Amendment rights,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

“There is a long tradition of preventing foreign ownership or control of media in the United States,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Lawyers for TikTok and many of its creators described the law as an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment.

“Shuttering the platform will silence the speech of 170 million monthly American users,” they said.

But Congress and the Biden administration said the Chinese-owned platform gives the government in Beijing access to “vast swaths of data about tens of millions of Americans,” which it “could use for espionage or blackmail.”

Advertisement

The justices agreed to decide TikTok’s 1st Amendment appeal on a fast-track schedule, and they are likely to issue a ruling within a few days.

None of them sounded ready to declare the law unconstitutional.

In recent years, the justices have often struck down federal regulations, usually on the grounds that Congress had not authorized such a far-reaching rule.
But they are wary of striking down an act of Congress, particularly one based on a claim of national security.

The shutdown law is due to take effect on Jan. 19.

“We go dark. The platform shuts down,” TikTok attorney Noel Francisco told the court, if it did not act.

Advertisement

Even if the justices were not ready to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he said they should issue an order that temporarily delays the law from taking effect.

“A short reprieve would make all the sense in the world,” he said, because it would give Trump time to try to work out a deal that could keep TikTok in operation.

In 2020, Trump, in his first term, issued an executive order requiring TikTok to separate itself from Chinese ownership, but it was blocked by courts.

President Biden and Congress took up the issue after receiving classified briefings about the potential threat from ByteDance, the Chinese-controlled company that operates TikTok.

The administration tried and failed to work out a deal that would separate TikTok from Chinese control.

Advertisement

The shutdown law had the support of large bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and Biden signed it in April. By its terms the law was due to take effect in 270 days, on Jan. 19.

If the law goes into effect, it would be illegal for service providers such as Google or Apple to “distribute or maintain … a foreign advisory controlled application” in the United States. Violations could result in huge civil fines.

TikTok’s last and best hope may now rest with Trump. He changed his view last year about TikTok, which he said helped him reach young voters.

Two weeks ago, he filed a brief urging the court to stand aside and allow him to make a deal with TikTok’s owners.

None of the justices asked about Trump’s intervention.

Advertisement

The law allows for a one-time extension of up to 90 days if the new president determined there has been “significant progress” toward arranging a “qualified divestiture.”

It is not clear whether Trump could invoke that provision to delay the law from taking effect.

On Wednesday, an investor group spearheaded by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt submitted an offer to ByteDance for TikTok’s U.S. business. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and a representative for the group, known as the People’s Bid for TikTok, declined to discuss the state of negotiations with the Chinese company on Friday.

“Our assumption is the Supreme Court will uphold the law, and at that point the only way to preserve TikTok under law will be a divestiture,” said Tomicah Tillemann, president of Project Liberty, a New York-based organization that assembled the bid.

Tillemann said the investment group would rebuild the platform in a way that prioritizes the privacy of TikTok users.

Advertisement

“What we are focused on is providing a clear path forward that will allow for the preservation of the dynamic, vibrant community that is TikTok under American ownership,” Tillemann said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending