In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a ‘grave’ national security risk for American users.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

‘We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here,’ Prelogar said. ‘Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data.’

‘TikTok’s immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage,’ she added. 

[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company’s core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

‘Exactly what is TikTok’s speech here?’ Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court’s apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It’s a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok’s legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has ‘no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda,’ and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
‘What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government’ and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  ‘It doesn’t alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated.’

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose ‘grave national security threats’ to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

President-elect Donald Trump’s winter White House is hosting a parade of House Republicans this weekend, all of whom are hoping that getting the incoming commander in chief’s ear will help an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers get on the same page on a massive conservative policy overhaul.

It is also likely to be another test of Trump’s power over Congressional Republicans and whether his influence will be enough to overcome longstanding fractures on fiscal policy.

‘The president is hosting multiple factions, right? It’s not just any one. The goal is to level-set the understanding of what we can accomplish,’ one GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. ‘Nobody disagrees, in broad brushstrokes, on the large goals. But there are very specific issues that are going to create concerns for folks. And we’ve got to work through them.’

On Friday, Trump is hosting members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, several of whom voted against a government funding bill the president-elect explicitly backed last month.

He is also due to meet with senior Republicans and House committee chairs, as well as GOP lawmakers from blue states.

It comes amid disagreements between Congressional Republicans on the path forward for the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism generally has allowed one party in control of the government to advance their own agenda through one massive bill.

More specifically, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to just a simple majority, putting it on par with the House of Representatives.

Reconciliation only allows for budgetary and other fiscal measures to be passed. However, both parties have traditionally tried to stretch those parameters to advance as much of their agendas as possible. GOP leaders have signaled they want to use reconciliation to deal with border security, energy policy, defense and to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

However, there is broad disagreement on whether to split those goals in half. Proponents of the two-track approach believe that passing an initial bill on border and energy policies will allow Republicans to score an early victory there while taking more time on tax policy.

However, those who advocate for just one bill argue that two reconciliation bills have not been passed in decades, given the heavy political capital needed for even one. They’ve warned that the strategy could put Trump’s tax cuts in danger of expiring.

The House GOP conference is also at odds on other details, such as whether to use reconciliation to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions – a move favored by blue state Republicans who represent the suburbs of New York City and Los Angeles, but which rural representatives are against.

‘I think it’s gonna be a good discussion. I think this is a great opportunity for us to discuss not just SALT…This was just about, you know, blue state Republicans coming with our priorities,’ said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

The Big Apple’s new congestion tax, tax reductions for seniors living off social security, and using the tax code to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. were all agenda items Malliotakis named.

‘I have much broader agenda items than just SALT, but SALT is critically important for the New York members in particular,’ she said.

House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., suggested the border would be at the forefront of his mind for his group’s Trump meeting.

‘The main thing is, how do we move forward? It’s going to cost some money to secure our border. It’s going to cost some money to hire more agents. But at the same time, we’ve got to cut spending where we can,’ Moore told Fox News Digital.

‘We need to be on the same sheet of music and I think we’ll have an opportunity for Trump to hear from us, but as well for us to hear from him.’

Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., a staunch Trump ally who said he would also be at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, dismissed concerns about differences on issues like SALT.

‘I think the dialogue is important to have. At the end of the day, we need to deliver for the American people. And so while people feel differently on various issues, it’s important to have that dialogue to figure out how we can put this thing together,’ he said.

Trump himself has not publicly declared the specifics of what he would want to pass via reconciliation. He has said he favors a one-bill approach, but would also be open to two.

Malliotakis and other Republicans on the tax-focused House Ways & Means Committee favor one bill.

However, a member of the House Freedom Caucus doubted that would happen.

‘I think we’ll talk big-picture stuff as far as reconciliation. I’m of the mindset it’ll likely be two bills, not one. But I think that’ll happen organically, you don’t have to force it,’ they said.

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s yearslong investigation. 

The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche. 

Judge Juan Merchan did not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, meaning there is no punishment imposed: no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump’s ability to appeal the conviction. 

‘After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge,’ Merchan said Friday. ‘At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.’ 

Merchan added, ‘Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.’

Before Judge Merchan announced the sentence, Trump called the case a ‘tremendous setback for the American court system.’ 

‘This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York,’ Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted ‘decisively’ to elect him as president. 

Trump said the Justice Department was ‘very involved’ and stressed that a case like this against a former president, candidate and now president-elect has ‘never happened in our country before.’ 

‘And I would just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much,’ Trump said Friday. 

Merchan set Jan. 10 for the sentencing, just 10 days before Trump is set to be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. 

Merchan, upon scheduling the sentencing last week, said that he was not likely to ‘impose any sentence of incarceration,’ but rather a sentence of an ‘unconditional discharge.’ 

During Friday’s sentencing hearing, Merchan said he took the ‘unusual step’ of informing Trump of his sentence prior to the proceeding. 

‘The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make,’ Merchan said, noting the court ‘must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.’

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that ‘never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances.’ The judge said it was an ‘extraordinary case’ with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself ‘was not any more unique or extraordinary’ than any other case.

Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request. 

Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it ‘immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York.’ 

The high court denied the request, saying ‘the application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons.’ 

‘First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal,’ the order states,’ the Supreme Court’s order, filed Thursday night, stated. ‘Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.’ 

The order also noted that ‘Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.’ 

Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of ‘lawfare’ promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app’s arguments.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has ‘no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda,’ and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
‘What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government’ and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  ‘It doesn’t alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated.’

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose ‘grave national security threats’ to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.