By Luke Mills-Hicks.

On January 19th 2025, millions of Americans woke up to access TikTok, a social media app built on short form video creation, only to be greeted by a notification telling them that the app was inaccessible following a bill passed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court effectively banned the Chinese owned social media platform following disputes between the company and the US government, with the latter accusing ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok of selling data from American users to the Chinese government. That being said, there are many other reasons that the government of the US would like to see TikTok banned or sold to an American owner, one of these reasons is largely economic, and represents a form of conflict between the US and China.

TikTok is an industry leader in the video app field, being the second most downloaded app of 2024 (Instagram 1st). TikTok is also growing quickly with over 120 million new users in 2024. This begs the question, did the Supreme Court wish to protect the data of millions of users, or does the US simply want the app for itself, and to ensure that China does not own one of the industry leaders in the social media market? This would not be the first time that the US government was happy to interfere with markets in order to benefit their own companies. Back in 2018, Trump placed a 292% tariff on aircraft produced by Bombardier, a Canadian aerospace firm; these tariffs essentially bankrupted the latest Bombardier program, forcing them to sell the jet to Airbus. Though this tariff was eventually ruled as unfair, the damage had already been done, and Boeing (a US company) reaped the rewards in the short term as airlines were forced to substitute the Bombardier jets with Boeings. If the US is willing to interfere so blatantly with markets, in order to favour their own companies, why would they not try to claim TikTok for their own?

Though this may all seem unfair and in contradiction to the belief in fair and free markets, the US government does, in fact, have the power to force a shutdown or sale of TikTok so long as it is under the guise of national security and the safety of the country. That being said, the reason that TikTok is under fire from the heads of US democracy is due to the inability of the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) to force earlier divestment of the company, as they were unsurprisingly met with a barrage of legal cases when they tried to do so.

An additional economic motivator for the US government is the “insider trading” that occurs after the passing of laws. Currently, Nancy Pelosi holds between $550K and $1M in Meta stock, and there are 26 other US politicians and lawmakers who own a notable amount of stock in Meta. If Meta were to acquire TikTok, following a forced sale, the value of these politicians’ portfolios would rise dramatically. This unearths another conflict; rather than being between the US and China, this conflict is between the interests of the American people and their government. Although the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act passed in 2012 aimed to stop US lawmakers from making trades that were based on the use of insider knowledge, it seems to do very little to protect the American people from self-interested politicians who would choose to grow their own wealth rather than act in the best interest of the country.

Taking all of the above information into account, it is easy to see why ByteDance is in a difficult situation; they can chose to sell to the US, and in dong so China admits defeat, or they may chose to completely shut TikTok down, leaving a gaping hole in the social media marketplace, and marking the death of an industry giant. With all being said, this case is still developing and whatever the outcome, it will surely have widespread implications.