#Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

[abyss-is-lame]

Please for the love of everything, SPREAD THIS VIDEO. I'm not one to get into these situations where I'm like 'spread this! reblog! reshare! show your friends!' for mental health reasons but this is very very important. Tag your friends and spread this video as much as you can, read the bill for yourself, TAKE ACTION. @in-a-mello-mood @scraptumblers @amfloofer Read the bill 'HR 7521' here:

[justinspoliticalcorner]

It has officially arrived: ByteDance-owned TikTok is (temporarily) banned in the USA. Late Saturday evening at around 10:30PM ET/9:30PM CT/7:30PM PT, before the TikTok Ban law was set to officially take effect, users of the app in the USA got this message: “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok right now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned.” Apple and Google app stores have removed the app, meaning that you cannot download the app or update the app. Not only is TikTok temporarily banned, but also Lemon8 and CapCut, which are under ByteDance’s umbrella. The ban on TikTok stems from President Joe Biden (D) signing the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) on April 24th, 2024, after the House passed it 360-58 on April 20th (the original House version passed it on March 13th, 2024 352-65), 2024 and the Senate passed it on April 23rd, 2024 79-18. The bill required ByteDance to divest TikTok and its subsidiaries to a buyer not controlled by a foreign adversary. The Supreme Court then unanimously and disgracefully ruled 9-0 per curiam in TikTok v. Garland on January 17th, 2025 that the law banning TikTok is valid.

The ban on TikTok is a nationwide tragedy, along with the return of felon-elect Donald Trump to the White House. The ban on TikTok has zero to do with national security, but a way to squelch pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-Palestine sentiments. The app’s ban would be very disastrous to music consumption and discovery, as its influence in the music world has risen within the last five years.

Read the full post at my Substack.

[nationallawreview]

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban Law

On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”), which restricts companies from making foreign adversary controlled applications available (i.e., on an app store) and from providing hosting services with respect to such apps. The Act does not apply to covered…

[finchandthebard]

The "tiktok ban" should scare you and here's why.

Rant made by an autistic, history-loving, chronically online American tiktok cosplayer. Please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong and I will edit the post.

Reblog to spread awareness!

This is not just about Tiktok, and it's not about national security. The Tiktok ban is wrapped up in the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" which has the ability to ban any foreign website or app that the United States government sees as a threat to their "democracy." Not only that, but if the gov't didn't want China to gather data, then they would ban things like Shein and Temu (the latter which they advertised during the Super Bowl), which collect similar data that Tiktok does. If they wanted to prevent our data being stolen in general, they would ban companies like Meta, which monetarily supports the Tiktok ban and had to change their name because "Facebook" was associated with the largest data leak in history.

The documentations of the Tiktok court interrogations prove how incompetent our government is. Repeatedly asking the TikTok CEO Mr. Chew if he's Chinese while he repeatedly assures them he's Singaporean. The officials being concerned that they can't find Singapore on a map. The officials then being confused why the app would be able to have access to their wifi because it needs wifi to load.

The possibility of the US buying Tiktok exposes a greater issue in America: monopolies. The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890 that restricted the activities of large companies known as monopolies, which started out as small companies and would either buy other companies or buy the factories which produced all their materials. This eliminated competition in the market and gave the monopolies almost full control of quality and prices of items, and it was considered very anti-American at the time. Since the US already has multiple major social medias, including Facebook (Meta), Instagram (Meta), Threads (Meta), X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat, and Reddit, adding Tiktok would mean that nobody could compete with the US in the social media market. This makes them a monopoly, and it's incredibly dangerous.

Banning Tiktok breaks several American trademarks. A) the Republicans banning Tiktok are very concerned about their second amendment right to own guns, but they seem to not care about the first amendment right to freedom of speech and press, which Tiktok delivers. Of course there are app guidelines, but for the most part you have fairly uncensored political and ethical commentary like no other social media. B) the only other countries that have banned Tiktok are either heavily demonized by America or are direct targets for American propaganda (ex. China), which really doesn't make the ban look good. C) banning a social media for the purpose of censorship is a trademark of communism, which Americans are INCREDIBLY wary of.

Your country may follow in suit. Because of America's influence as a global superpower and an ally to many other major powers, America banning Tiktok would likely lead to a domino effect in other countries.

The rich get richer. There is a concept called social darwinism, in which it is the rich's beliefs that the poor must fend for themselves without the help of the government in order to make a living - "survival of the fittest." Tiktok contributed around $14.7 billion USD in 2023 and $24.2 billion in 2024, and it supports around 224,000 jobs [source]. The actual Tiktok website says in 2023, they contributed $15 billion USD in revenue and supported 7 million US businesses [source]. Without these jobs, there could be in increase in homelessness, debt, and sickness due to withdrawals (if you're incredibly addicted to Tiktok) and lack of quick dopamine hits (due to the rapidfire nature of the algorithm).

Remember that the president is not your friend !! Many of the political figures rallying to support Tiktok right now, such as President Biden, initially voted for the ban. President Biden is likely supporting now so that Trump won't get credit for it, and future President Trump is likely doing it for brownie points among younger generations.

The Xiaohongshu migration exposed the American government and its lies. The stories from American 'Tiktok refugees' about the questions from native Chinese on the Xiaohongshu / Rednote / Redbook app (considered the Chinese mixed of Pinterest, Instagram, and Facebook) posed a lot of conspiracies and realizations about the American government. The Chinese actually own their homes, they have lower food prices than we do, and they have a slim homelessness rate. Whether this is true or not, it has greatly influenced how we see ourselves in the grand scheme of the American oligarchy, and that is not something that can be suppressed with an app being banned.

Tiktok is not totally Chinese! The CEO is Singaporean, as I've already stated, and there are multiple headquarters in the US, with the main one being in Los Angeles.

In conclusion...

Whether Tiktok is banned or not, whether permanently or not, no matter who saves it or rallies against it, remember that it is harder to scare and control someone when they are in a group. And if you think this was interesting, I'd love it if you could reblog to show some support and inform your friends as well. <3

THIS IS NOT RIGHT VS LEFT❗️IT'S UP VS DOWN❗️

[xhxhxhx]

Today, the Supreme Court handed down opinions in TikTok Inc. v. Garland, No. 24-656, slip op. (U.S. Jan. 17, 2025), sustaining the federal law banning the social media platform.

For my own sake, I tried to figure out what the law says and does, bracketing the First Amendment issues.

I.

The federal law at issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, Pub. L. No. 118-50, div. H, 138 Stat. 955. It's a division of an April 2024 appropriations bill, a bundle that came with aid for Israel and Ukraine.

The Act targets "foreign adversary controlled applications," which it defines, in part, as applications operated by ByteDance, TikTok, their subsidiaries or successors, or any entity they own or control. § 2(g)(3)(A), 138 Stat. at 958.

The Act's prohibitions address app stores and web hosts. They're the ones who have to deny support to "foreign adversary controlled applications," and keep them off their platforms.

The Act makes it unlawful "to distribute, maintain, or update" the app by providing either (A) "a marketplace" through which users in the United States "may access, maintain, or update" the application, or (B) "internet hosting services" that enable "distribution, maintenance, or updating" for users in the United States. § 2(a)(1).

These prohibitions are only applicable to the territory of the United States and those within it. They address "carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States," acts for "users within the land or maritime borders of the United States."

The territorial language, "the land and maritime borders of the United States," is not defined within the Act. Nor is it defined anywhere else in the U.S. Code. It's only used once. 6 U.S.C. § 124h(e).

That said, deducing "the land and maritime borders of the United States" should be fairly straightforward for someone familiar with the relevant boundary treaties and law of the sea, as understood by the political branches. It's just not something I understand.

II.

The Act targets "foreign adversary controlled applications," which it defines, in part, as applications operated by ByteDance, TikTok, their subsidiaries or successors, or any entity they own or control. § 2(g)(3)(A), 138 Stat. at 958.

The Act extends to covered companies "controlled by a foreign adversary," following a public notice and a public report to Congress, § 2(g)(3)(B), but ByteDance and TikTok are the only persons identified by name.

The language seems broad. But "controlled by foreign adversary" is fairly narrow. It means persons domiciled in "foreign adversary countries," entities they have a 20 percent stake in, and persons subject to their direction or control. § 2(g)(1). That's it.

The term "foreign adversary country" is defined obliquely, § 2(4), by reference to a military minerals procurement rule, 10 U.S.C. § 4872, but it only covers four countries, specified by name: North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. 10 U.S.C. § 4872(d)(2).

The President could, in other words, ban applications operated by persons domiciled in North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran, or entities in which such persons have a 20 percent stake, or entities subject to their direction or control.

It doesn't sweep much further than that.

III.

The "foreign adversary country" limitation means the Act isn't an unconstrained delegation to the President.

It's not like the President's authority to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f); Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017).

Nor is it like the President's authority to restrict entry from countries "designated by the Secretary of State," or "designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security." 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12); Exec. Order No. 13,780, § 1(b)(i), 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (March 6, 2017).

Nor is it like the President's claimed authority to bar "any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd.," Exec. Order No. 13,942, § 1(a), 85 Fed. Reg. 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020), a claim that proved wanting. TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2020); Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 625 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

The Act is, mercifully, is more constrained than that.

[tachybeat]

For the record, since there is a lot of misinfo flying around from people who have a really hard time accepting that Democrats can be the bad guys sometimes:

This wasn't actually caused by Trump. Trump's "attempt" at a TikTok ban played zero part in this. I hate Trump with a passion, but this is not his fault and I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

What actually did this was Biden signing the "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act" in April 2024 after being urged to by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

Hope this helps.

[tomorrowusa]

« So, here’s a shocker: It turns out that, if you elect a felon as president of the United States, he will continue to break laws once he’s in office.

Who knew? »

— Dana Milbank at the Washington Post (archived).

Further down in the article, Mr. Milbank lists some of the laws Trump has likely broken.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024. The Administrative Leave Act of 2016. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Inspector General Act of 1978. The Privacy Act of 1974. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. The Public Health Service Act 1944. The Antideficiency Act of 1870. That’s a century and a half of statutes shredded in just over two weeks.

You don't put lawbreakers in office to solve problems. Once a crook, always a crook.

You either have the rule of law or you have lawlessness.

[steelbluehome]

This is the Wikipedia article on the ban TikTok law. It was introduced by Republican Mike Gallagher. It was passed by the House and agreed to by the Senate. It was then sent to the office of the President. If President Biden had vetoed the bill it would have gone to Congress where it would be passed by a 2/3rds majority.

And Biden would have been painted as someone who did not care about National Security during the election campaign.

[reiningsoral]

ABOUT THE "TIKTOK BAN"

I think so many people are not grasping the reach in which thus bill can go. the tiktok ban bill that people have been talking about is bil H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

I've included a screenshot of the text below.

this bill essentially allows the U.S. to prohibit/restrict and website, app, or other online host owned by a foreign company whenever they want.

if you live in the U.S. or hell, even if you don't, I implore you to read up on recent bills like this thy are trying to be passed. please educate yourself on this, please

[mariacallous]

Republicans and Democrats sank ungodly amounts of money into creating content for TikTok this election year, but there’s a chance the app might not be around in the US come next cycle. Or even president-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.

Quickly, a refresher: President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in April, creating the state of affairs we find ourselves in today. The law put in place a system that would ban TikTok if the app’s parent company, Bytedance, didn’t sell to a US-based owner by January 19, 2025. Once that deadline rolls around, the president can decide to extend it an additional 90 days. We’re supposed to find out by tomorrow if a federal appeals court will uphold the law requiring Bytedance to sell off its stake.

Soon, we’ll know whether the court will strike down the ban bill or if TikTok’s fate is left in the Trump administration’s hands.

Right now, two things stand in the way of this ban going into effect. First, the deadline. And second, a lawsuit. Shortly after the bill became law, TikTok sued the US government for violating the free speech protections of the company and its users by, effectively, banning the app. That’s the decision we’re waiting on this week.

There are a few different outcomes that could play out. The court could agree with TikTok’s arguments and strike down the law on First Amendment grounds. If that were to happen, TikTok would be safe unless the Justice Department decides to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or the full DC circuit. Even if the feds appealed, it could take months or years before the justices take up the case, leaving us in an even lengthier limbo.

The court could also uphold the law, setting TikTok up for an outright ban. But if the court sides with the Justice Department, the incoming Trump administration may still find a way to keep the app around.

In September, Trump posted to Truth Social, saying “FOR ALL OF THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!” (caps his, not mine). “I’m a big star on TikTok,” he said in the attached video. It was an odd statement coming from the man who was the first president who tried to ban the app. But according to The Washington Post, the Trump administration now plans to find a way to halt any ban of TikTok once the president-elect takes office, though it hasn’t announced any official plans.

Trump warmed up to TikTok over the course of the election year, promising to protect the beloved app. One of the TikTok’s biggest investors, billionaire Jeff Yass, was also one of Trump’s biggest donors. He also used it to his advantage: Over the summer, Trump joined TikTok and racked up millions of followers and collabs with popular streamers that played a huge role in his campaign’s appeal to young voters. His many podcast appearances with people like Joe Rogan, the Nelk Boys, and Andrew Schultz were also clipped and shared in bite-size pieces throughout the app.

More than 170 million Americans use TikTok, according to the most recent numbers shared by the company. Only 32 percent of Americans support a TikTok ban, according to a recent Pew survey. When a similar study was conducted in May 2023, 50 percent of Americans supported it.

Trump’s inauguration is scheduled for January 20, the day after the deadline to give TikTok more time to find a buyer. I’d bet that Biden would decide to extend it, making TikTok’s future Trump’s problem, but the current president hasn’t given any signals on what he could do. The White House did not respond to a request for comment from WIRED.

While Trump may have won TikTok this cycle, Democrats don’t see the app as a lost cause. In fact, the Democratic strategists I’ve spoken to have argued that a presence on the app is more necessary than ever.

“I’m against the ban. Not only will it hurt us with younger voters, it will eliminate a channel where Democrats can compete to get their message out,” says Ryan Davis, cofounder and chief operating officer at People First, a political influencer and relational marketing firm that partnered with the Biden and Harris campaigns. “Trump may have won TikTok in 2024, but it’s a channel Democrats demographically should be highly competitive on.”

I genuinely have no idea whether TikTok will come out on top this week. When oral arguments were presented in September, the judges didn’t sound too sold on the idea that the law was, well, unlawful. More likely than not, we’ll still be stuck in this limbo of not knowing whether we’ll be able to scroll and watch important and groundbreaking content like this.

[usgovsummary]

January 20, 2025

POTUS:

Retracted 78 previous executive orders, most regarding COVID-19 actions to ensure public safety, federal DEI programs, several EOs that held the executive branch accountable, climate change, immigration, and healthcare. Full list here.

Announced Cabinet picks: here

Required all federal employees to terminate remote working

Declared a national emergency on the southern border

Removed the US from WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement

Pardoned rioters from the January 6th Insurrection

Imposed new trade standards, supposedly prioritizing America: here

Declared a national energy emergency, ignoring many environmental regulations to lower the cost of energy and promote energy production

Gave the president the ability to remove Career Senior Executives who are deemed to have "failed" the president

Bolstered the death penalty

Signed an EO to stop birthright citizenship

Signed an EO to redefine the two sexes and stated the federal government will not recognize gender identity

Implemented the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Allowed natural gas fracking and drilling in Alaska again

Several EOs were signed to prevent immigration from the southern border

Temporarily ending offshore wind farm projects

Redistributed foreign aid

Ended government DEI programs and insist the government will be hiring on merit

Federally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and Mount Denali to Mount McKinley

Designated international cartels as global terrorists

Ended national emergency that imposed sanctions on settlers invading the West Bank

More details and the actual policies can be found here

SCOTUS:

The Supreme Court was closed

Congress:

2 bills were introduced: One meant to repeal the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The other deals with a nuance finance issue.

Passed the Laken Riley Act, requiring aliens who are being charged with theft in the US to be taken into custody

Confirm the nomination of Marco Rubio for Secretary of State

Debate began on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the Senate. The law is meant to prevent healthcare professionals from failing to provide proper care in case a child survives an abortion

In the House of Representatives, 12 public bills were introduced: 5 were regarding the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which deals with taxes. One was to advance the US strategy in the Pacific Islands. H. R. 563 is meant to discontinue the collection of records for discontinued firearms sales by the federal government. Others dealt with the law banning TikTok, residency requirements of officials, air pollution, labor representation, and funding for law enforcement to deal with auto theft

Further details can be found here

[follow-up-news]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would take up TikTok's appeal challenging a federal law that could ban the popular social media app by next month. The court acted just a day after TikTok filed its appeal and will hear oral arguments on Jan. 10 before issuing a decision on whether to put the law on hold. At issue is a bipartisan measure passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden that would go into effect on Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. The law, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, would require TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the platform to an American company or face a ban. TikTok has challenged the law, saying it violates its free speech rights under the First Amendment. In the order announcing it would take up the case, the court did not provisionally block the law.

[beardedmrbean]

What's New

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in TikTok's challenge to a law set to go into effect on the last day of Joe Biden's presidency, which would ban the popular app if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not sell it.

ByteDance has indicated it will not sell TikTok.

The justices granted certiorari Wednesday to take up the petition filed by ByteDance, which owns TikTok. The court will hear arguments on January 10 about whether the federal law that seeks to ban the app on national security grounds violates free speech laws.

Why It Matters

TikTok filed the challenge on Monday, arguing that the law, enacted with bipartisan support in April, impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. Congress passed the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act earlier this year over concerns that the app's Chinese ownership presented a national security risk.

The popular social media platform has more than 170 million users in the United States.

What To Know

A federal appeals court unanimously upheld the ban in a ruling earlier this month, finding that the government does have a national security interest in regulating TikTok in the U.S.

If the Supreme Court does not issue a decision before the deadline, the ban will go into effect a day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office—timing that TikTok's attorneys have pointed out in their filings.

Lawyers for the app said the ban "will shutter one of America's most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration" and "in turn, will silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern."

TikTok CEO Shou Chew met with Trump at the president-elect's Mar-a-Lago home on Monday afternoon, just hours after the company asked the Supreme Court to wade into the matter.

Trump has suggested he could take a different approach to the app but has not indicated what that might look like. Still, TikTok picked up on that tone and urged the Supreme Court to block the ban to give "the incoming administration time to determine its position."

What People Are Saying

Trump, at a Monday press conference: "I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points, and there are those that say that TikTok has something to do with it."

TikTok, in a December 6 statement: "The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025."

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who led the charge against TikTok and is Trump's pick for secretary of state, said in an April 24 statement: "TikTok extended the Chinese Communist Party's power and influence into our own nation, right under our noses. I have been raising concerns about TikTok since 2019, so this new law forcing ByteDance to divest from TikTok is a huge step toward confronting Beijing's malign influence. It's official: Communist China is on the clock."

What's Next

It's unclear how quickly the high court might issue a decision. There are only nine days between oral arguments and the ban's effective date.

[plethoraworldatlas]

Congress’ unfounded plan to ban TikTok under the guise of protecting our data is back, this time in the form of a new bill—the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” H.R. 7521 — which has gained a dangerous amount of momentum in Congress. This bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House just a week ago and is expected to be sent to the Senate after a vote later this week.

A year ago, supporters of digital rights across the country successfully stopped the federal RESTRICT Act, commonly known as the “TikTok Ban” bill (it was that and a whole lot more). And now we must do the same with this bill. 

As a first step, H.R. 7521 would force TikTok to find a new owner that is not based in a foreign adversarial country within the next 180 days or be banned until it does so. It would also give the President the power to designate other applications under the control of a country considered adversarial to the U.S. to be a national security threat. If deemed a national security threat, the application would be banned from app stores and web hosting services unless it cuts all ties with the foreign adversarial country within 180 days. The bill would criminalize the distribution of the application through app stores or other web services, as well as the maintenance of such an app by the company. Ultimately, the result of the bill would either be a nationwide ban on the TikTok, or a forced sale of the application to a different company.

Make no mistake—though this law starts with TikTok specifically, it could have an impact elsewhere. Tencent’s WeChat app is one of the world’s largest standalone messenger platforms, with over a billion users, and is a key vehicle for the Chinese diaspora generally. It would likely also be a target. 

The bill’s sponsors have argued that the amount of private data available to and collected by the companies behind these applications — and in theory, shared with a foreign government — makes them a national security threat. But like the RESTRICT Act, this bill won’t stop this data sharing, and will instead reduce our rights online. User data will still be collected by numerous platforms—possibly even TikTok after a forced sale—and it will still be sold to data brokers who can then sell it elsewhere, just as they do now. 

The only solution to this pervasive ecosystem is prohibiting the collection of our data in the first place. Ultimately, foreign adversaries will still be able to obtain our data from social media companies unless those companies are forbidden from collecting, retaining, and selling it, full stop. And to be clear, under our current data privacy laws, there are many domestic adversaries engaged in manipulative and invasive data collection as well. That’s why EFF supports such consumer data privacy legislation. 

[trump-executive-orders]

Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States

Issued January 20, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

America's sovereignty is under attack. Our southern border is overrun by cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries, and illicit narcotics that harm Americans, including America.

This invasion has caused widespread chaos and suffering in our country over the last 4 years. It has led to the horrific and inexcusable murders of many innocent American citizens, including women and children, at the hands of illegal aliens. Foreign criminal gangs and cartels have begun seizing control of parts of cities, attacking our most vulnerable citizens, and terrorizing Americans beyond the control of local law enforcement. Cartels control vast territories just south of our southern border, effectively controlling who can and cannot travel to the United States from Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have tragically died from drug overdoses because of the illicit narcotics that have flowed across the southern border.

This assault on the American people and the integrity of America's sovereign borders represents a grave threat to our Nation.

Because of the gravity and emergency of this present danger and imminent threat, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to take all appropriate action to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining full operational control of the southern border.

To protect the security and safety of United States citizens, to protect each of the States against invasion, and to uphold my duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, it is my responsibility as President to ensure that the illegal entry of aliens into the United States via the southern border be immediately and entirely stopped.

As Commander in Chief, I have no more solemn duty than to protect the American people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare tha a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government's response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments. I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Deployment of Personnel and Resources. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Armed Forces, including the Ready Reserve and the National Guard, as the Secretary of Defense determines to be appropriate to support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security in obtaining complete operational control of the southern border of the United States. The Secretary of Defense shall further take all appropriate action to facilitate the operational needs of the Secretary of Homeland Security along the southern border, including through the provision of appropriate detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services in support of civilian-controlled law enforcement operations.

Sec. 2. Additional Physical Barriers. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security shall immediately take all appropriate action, consistent with law, including 10 U.S.C. 2214, to construct additional physical barriers along the southern border. To the extent possible, the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security shall coordinate with any Governor of a State that is willing to assist with the deployment of any physical infrastructure to improve operational security at the southern border.

Sec. 3. Unmanned Aerial Systems. The Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, consider waiving all applicable Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission regulations or policies, respectively, that restrict the Department of Homeland Security's ability to counter unmanned aerial systems within 5 miles of the southern border.

Sec. 4. Revision of Policies and Strategies. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action, consistent with law, to prioritize the impedance and denial of the unauthorized physical entry of aliens across the southern border of the United States, and to ensure that use of force policies prioritize the safety and security of Department of Homeland Security personnel and members of the Armed Forces.

Sec. 5. Revocation. Proclamation 10142 of January 20, 2021 (Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction), is hereby revoked.

Sec. 6. Reporting Requirement. (a) Within 30 days of the date of ths proclamation, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President, through the Homeland Security Advisor, a report outlining all actions taken to fulfill the requirements and objectives of this proclamation; and (b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

[radioluminescentoblivion]

LONG WINDED RANT INCOMING!!

On this day, TikTok is officially banned in the US on all devices after the US Supreme Court upheld the act known as PAFACA or (Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act) by a unanimous vote. However, Bytedance removed TikTok from app stores and was blocked on all devices to prepare for the fallout a day before the ban. 

TikTok has been on America’s radar since Trump’s first term in office but hasn’t gotten the boot until more recently. The reasons stem mostly on these two justifications: 1. National security concerns of American data being collected by Bytedance to be then given to the Chinese government and 2. To combat China’s efforts to manipulate Americans on the content of the platform. But the truth of the matter is…it’s all bullshit.

The entire narrative behind the “national security” belief is but a red herring as to the US's real motives, it’s to suppress freedom of speech from dissenting voices that otherwise wouldn’t be controlled under an American company. The ironic aspect of all this is that the very crimes Congress, DOJ, and many other ruling bodies are claiming China is doing is exactly what America is doing now on a corporate and governmental scale. Why make such a big fuss about data security when that same concern has little to no impact in regards to US tech corporations? What exactly is China going to do when they finally have data on that one person from TikTok doing silly dances? Why is a foreign fucking agent needed to sow dissent in American citizens when our own government does just that? 

Despite these claims they’ve yet to provide evidence to justify this ban, it is merely speculation, which is not a good look to make in regards to defending free speech from foreign agents. It is possible that Bytedance could be collecting data to be handed over to the PRC, it is possible they could be manufacturing the algorithm in their interest, but how is that any different than how we do it? If anything, it’s far worse in comparison and receives little pushback.

Meanwhile, you have Senator Mitt Romney saying exactly the reason as to why this ban is a motive in the first place. https://youtu.be/V92PzA6eEyM?feature=shared&t=1333 

This is not the first time American politicians have brought up pro-Palestine sentiment or in their words “Hamas propaganda” concerning TikTok or how they’ll tie it to the same degree of promoting tyranny as pro-Russia or pro-China. They know they can’t have full control of what the political narrative is on TikTok because it’s not an American company with Western-centric interest, the algorithm can’t be easily swayed to support Israel in comparison, so what can they do? Well, label it a national security concern and try to ban the app on grounds of speculation rather than proof. If this isn’t enough to convince you, keep in mind that the American government’s only other option to TikTok besides getting banned is to sell to some other benefactor to own the app just to do the same thing it’s always been doing, just not under a Chinese company.   

And before anyone is quick to jump on the “good riddance” bandwagon, I’d like to remind you that this is not a victory for the people, it is a continual reminder that America will do whatever it can to use security as a justification of suppression of free speech just as it has done time and time again. If you think this will only apply to China or some other foreign nation, think again. It’s these slippery slopes that make the rise of a fascist state all the more possible. 

But despite all this, will the ban be permanent? Hard to say, but knowing if Trump is involved, he just might make the ban temporary and allow the divestment to go through and the app to remain on American grounds (for his interest, of course) Either that or people just use Rednote instead, which would be the opposite of what the government would want. But even if TikTok was brought back, it wouldn’t undo the damage that has already been set in stone.