If Trump lifts TikTok ban, donors gain and U.S. national security suffers.

• On January 20, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated, one day before a federal TikTok ban is set to commence, although a U.S. court is predicted to make a crucial ruling regarding the ban this week.
• Trump's comments on CNBC's "Squawk Box" in March suggested he may change his stance on a TikTok ban.
• If Trump reverses his stance on ByteDance-owned social media, it will indicate that he prioritizes donor interests over sound public policy, even in areas where there are significant national security risks related to China, according to Asia expert Dewardric McNeal.

During his first term, President-elect Donald Trump warned about the national security dangers posed by TikTok, framing the social media app within his aggressive anti-China stance. However, during the 2024 campaign, Trump appeared to change his stance, doing an about-face.

During a CNBC interview in March, Trump stated that prohibiting TikTok would cause young people to become frenzied and would ultimately benefit Facebook.

"Trump stated that TikTok has both good and bad aspects, but he dislikes the fact that without it, Facebook can become more powerful, and he views Facebook as an enemy of the people, along with many media outlets."

The transition team for Trump hasn't commented on TikTok, but they have stated that the election results give the president the authority to fulfill the campaign promises, and there are upcoming deadlines regarding TikTok's future.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to rule on a challenge to the new law requiring ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to divest its U.S. operations by January 19. This case has broad implications, including national security concerns, constitutional questions about free speech, and the future of foreign-owned tech platforms in the U.S.

The outcome of the case involving ByteDance divestment is uncertain, as courts generally defer to the executive and legislative branches on national security matters. However, the court's decision may be influenced by whether it frames the issue solely as a national security question or also considers First Amendment concerns. The balance likely favors the government due to Congress's clear constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nonetheless, this case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

On the day after Trump's second inauguration and the start of the federal TikTok ban, Trump's remarks have heightened fears about the impact of major donors on his administration and the prioritization of private interests over national security and public welfare. In fact, his first major decision may reveal how far his administration is willing to go in catering to the wishes of his donors.

Jeff Yass, a major Republican donor with significant financial ties to ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, has been at the center of controversy over Trump's reversal of the ban on TikTok. Yass, who contributed over $46 million to Republican causes during the 2024 election cycle, reportedly met with Trump in March, though the details of their conversation remain unclear. However, it is clear that Yass's ownership stake in ByteDance has fueled concerns in Washington about whether Trump's reversal was influenced by donor priorities rather than a pure devotion to market competition.

TikTok's CEO has been lobbying Elon Musk, who now has a close relationship with the President-Elect, on behalf of his company, while Meta's Mark Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last week.

The reversal of a TikTok ban raises concerns about the optics. If a prominent Democratic donor like George Soros had similarly positioned himself to influence major policy decisions tied to his personal financial interests, the accusations of corruption and undue influence would be deafening. However, figures like Yass and particularly Elon Musk, who has entangled his financial interests with Trump's transition team and many of their personnel and policy decisions, face little scrutiny from the same critics who level conspiracy theories against Soros.

The selective outrage highlights a systemic issue: a political system where major donors have significant influence over policymaking, often without bipartisan expressions of concern or actions that promote transparency or accountability.

TikTok's weaponized influence

The app's rapid growth has intensified concerns about its ties to the Chinese government, as lawmakers and intelligence officials have repeatedly warned about its potential for data harvesting, espionage, and propaganda. These concerns are not abstract, as TikTok has shown its ability to weaponize its platform by rapidly mobilizing its user base to flood lawmakers with calls and emails opposing bans.

TikTok's ability to sway public sentiment and shape national opinions is unmatched, as demonstrated in real-time. However, its ties to the Chinese government raise concerns about its potential for misuse or mischief.

Another issue with TikTok's ban reversal is that there is already a law in place, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which was enacted in April 2024 as part of Public Law 118-50. This legislation requires foreign adversary-controlled applications, such as TikTok, to be divested or face a U.S. ban. As federal law, PAFACA cannot be reversed by presidential decree. A U.S. president cannot legally bypass Congress to nullify or override an existing law. Laws passed by Congress remain in effect until they are repealed or amended by Congress or struck down by the courts.

Any changes to TikTok's status should be handled through the PAFACA framework to ensure transparency and public interest. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, they have the power to amend or repeal PAFACA. However, doing so would require navigating a complex legislative process that would bring more scrutiny to Yass.

Trump's options

Trump's authority to unilaterally overturn a TikTok ban as president is limited, as his dominance of the federal courts at the highest level is the only route he could take, but it would be difficult to execute based on how the system is supposed to work.

Trump has two options for enforcing federal laws: enforcement discretion and executive orders. The president has significant discretion in how federal laws are enforced, allowing executive agencies to prioritize certain aspects of a law over others, effectively scaling down enforcement in specific areas. While executive orders cannot override existing laws, they can guide how the executive branch implements them, potentially narrowing their scope. Presidents have historically used enforcement discretion to achieve policy objectives without openly violating the law.

By considering TikTok through the existing legal framework of PAFACA, balanced alternatives such as stricter data security measures, local data storage, or divestiture under U.S. ownership could be explored. These options would protect users' access to the app while addressing legitimate security risks.

The proposed solutions to address security concerns have been explored in public discussions and through initiatives like "Project Texas." While these efforts have faced criticism and challenges, such as insufficient follow-through or incomplete implementation, it is important to continue considering them as potential remedies. Despite the lack of execution so far, the proposals themselves are not necessarily failures.

The broader implications of donor-driven policy

Trump's March comments on TikTok are accurate in one respect. The app's immense popularity presents a unique challenge. With over 150 million users in the U.S., TikTok is more than just a platform for entertainment; it has become a vital tool for creativity, connection, and commerce, particularly among younger Americans and small businesses. This widespread use complicates the conversation, as any decision about TikTok's future will inevitably impact millions of people who rely on it for various purposes.

The popularity of TikTok should not overshadow the national security concerns it poses, especially given its ties to the Chinese government. ByteDance's documented connections to the Chinese government have raised concerns in Washington about the potential misuse of TikTok's data collection capabilities. These risks are not speculative, as they reflect patterns of behavior consistent with Chinese state-sponsored cyber activities. Allowing donor-driven priorities to eclipse these legitimate security concerns undermines public trust in the policymaking process and erodes confidence in government institutions.

What other national priorities may be compromised to satisfy donors with significant influence, as demonstrated by the impact of TikTok's national security concerns on public policy decisions? This raises a critical question about the potential consequences for other pressing issues, such as energy policy, defense, and trade. The stakes are too high to allow financial interests to dictate the outcomes of public policy.

The government should prioritize national security over the interests of private wealthy donors.

Dewardric McNeal, managing director & senior policy analyst at Longview Global and CNBC contributor, was an Asia policy specialist at the Defense Department during the Obama administration.