Ticking Clock for TikTok: Trump’s Delay and the Legal Fight for the App’s Future
By Rishika Prakash; Photo Credit: Fox Business
In a reversal of his prior efforts to remove TikTok from the U.S. market, last week President Donald Trump issued an executive order extending the app’s compliance deadline under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (“PAFACAA”).[1] The 2024 statute, passed with bipartisan support, prohibits foreign-owned apps deemed security risks from operating in the United States unless their operations are sold to an approved U.S. buyer. TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, was given a January 19th deadline to divest its U.S. assets or face a nationwide ban.[2]
Two days before the deadline, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld PAFACAA in TikTok v. Garland, rejecting the company’s claims that the act violated its First Amendment rights.[3] TikTok had argued that banning its services amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on free expression, as the platform enables millions of Americans to share and consume content.[4] The government countered that national security concerns justified the law, pointing to the potential misuse of user data by foreign adversaries.[5] The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the government, emphasizing the narrowly tailored nature of the statute and its compelling interest in safeguarding national security.[6] The ruling allowed the January 19th deadline to take effect, briefly taking TikTok offline as app stores and service providers began complying with the ban. However, on January 20th, Trump issued an executive order extending the compliance deadline by 75 days.[7] The order directed the Department of Justice to refrain from enforcing penalties during this period and to issue guidance to companies that no liability would arise for conduct during the extension or prior to the order’s issuance. While this action temporarily restored TikTok’s availability for existing users, it has not prompted app stores to reinstate the app for downloads or updates.
The executive order represents a stark departure from Trump’s previous stance on TikTok. In 2020, during his first term, Trump issued an order attempting to ban the app outright, citing national security concerns over data collection practices.[8] This earlier effort was blocked by federal courts, which found that the administration had failed to adequately substantiate its claims or follow procedural requirements.[9] The legal setbacks of 2020 paved the way for Congress to act through PAFACAA, creating a more robust and defensible framework for addressing concerns about foreign-controlled apps.
Trump’s executive order raises complex legal questions about the scope of presidential authority. PAFACAA, as enacted by Congress, specifies strict deadlines and penalties for noncompliance. The president’s unilateral decision to delay enforcement appears to conflict with the statute’s plain language, which grants no explicit authority for such extensions.[10] The legality of the order also hinges on its reliance on national security justifications. The executive order does not cite specific statutory authority for the extension, instead framing the decision as necessary to facilitate a resolution that aligns with the administration’s broader policy goals.
Broader Implications and Future Uncertainty
The controversy surrounding TikTok underscores the broader challenges of balancing national security with economic and constitutional considerations. The platform’s immense popularity—boasting over 170 million U.S. users—has heightened the stakes, as disruption to its operations led to significant backlash from both the public and private sectors.[11] At the same time, PAFACAA is part of a broader legislative push to address perceived risks of foreign influence in critical infrastructure, data security, and information ecosystems. The ongoing issue highlights the evolving nature of digital regulation, as lawmakers and courts grapple with the implications of foreign ownership in an interconnected social media world.
For now, TikTok’s fate hinges on whether a buyer for its U.S. operations can be identified before the extended deadline. Oracle remains a leading contender, but the legality of Trump’s extension—and the broader implications of his actions—may invite further challenges.[12] Whether the administration’s approach will result in a lasting resolution or exacerbate legal and political tensions remains to be seen.
Rishika Prakash is currently a 2L at Vanderbilt Law School from Plano, Texas. After graduation, she plans to focus on corporate and transactional law.
[1] Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, H.R. 7521, 118th Cong. (2024).
[2] Id.
[3] TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 1, 1–20 (2025).
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 9.
[6] Id. at 18-20.
[7] Alison Grande, Trump Delays TikTok Ban To Hammer Out Deal, Law360 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2285600/trump-delays-tiktok-ban-to-hammer-out-deal.
[8] Kurt Wagner & Alexandra Levine, Where the US TikTok Ban Stands After Trump’s Executive Order, Bloomberg (Jan. 28, 2025), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-29/tiktok-ban-where-it-stands-after-trump-s-executive-order?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=copy.
[9] See International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1706.
[10] Alex Lawson, Trump Treads Into Murky Waters With TikTok Gambit, Law360 (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2288181/trump-treads-into-murky-waters-with-tiktok-gambit.
[11] See Tiktok Inc. at 19.
[12] See Wagner & Levine, supra note 8.