Donald Trump sentenced with no penalty in New York criminal trial, as judge wishes him ‘Godspeed’ in 2nd term
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 years-long 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. TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE Trump called the case and his sentencing 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. Judge Juan Merchan set Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. 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.” 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,” which means there would be no punishment imposed. 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.” TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS REQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL “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.
Supreme Court appears skeptical of blocking U.S. ban on TiKTok: What to know
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court. At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. On 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. ‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’: FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 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. At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter— though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force. The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have historically been deferential to Congress on matters of national security. The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support— as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges. But the arguments also comes at a time when President-elect Donald Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president. If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is “trying to get Americans to argue with each other,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, “I’d say they are winning.” 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 sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law’s constitutionality. 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.” TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE 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,
TikTok urges Supreme Court to stop impending ban just days before it takes effect
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. 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 centered 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. 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.
Sotomayor questions logic of TikTok’s argument against looming national ban
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. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case appears to be the first case 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. That consideration could undermine TikTok’s fundamental argument at hand, which is that the government failed to consider less-restrictive alternatives before jumping to an outright ban. “I don’t think any of our cases have ever suggested that we have to use the least restrictive means under intermediate scrutiny,” Sotomayor said. 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.” 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. Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
‘Powerful tool’ for China: Government defends pending TikTok ban
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. ‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’: FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 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.” TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE 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.
‘Devastating’: California had record rainfall last year, but lacked infrastructure to store it
California does not have a water shortage, yet firefighters battling the brutal fires across Los Angeles are facing scarce resources to keep up with the blaze that has threatened thousands of lives, homes, land and wildlife. Meanwhile, critics challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom’s call to “not play politics,” arguing that political mismanagement is precisely to blame. “It’s all political,” Edward Ring, the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center think-tank, told Fox News Digital in an interview. “The entire cause is political, and they ironically politicize it by saying it’s about climate change, which is a political wedge that they use all the time, which is really one of the least of the factors causing this.” Experts lay blame primarily on the state’s handling of its forestry management and a lesser-known problem, the state’s outdated water reserves system. California’s existing reservoirs can only hold so much water, and many were built in the mid-20th century. Last year, the state experienced record-breaking rainfall after an atmospheric river event, but the existing water infrastructure faced difficulties managing the sudden influx of water. A significant portion of that rainfall was dumped into the ocean. PALISADES FIRE: HEIDI MONTAG, SPENCER PRATT LOSE HOME; CELEBRITIES FLEE RITZY NEIGHBORHOOD Ring also pointed to “environmentalist extremists” in the state who have pushed for heavier regulations like the Endangered Species Act, which requires freshwater to flow through rivers and into the Pacific Ocean to protect the endangered delta smelt and salmon. The mandates restrict how much water can be diverted to storage, even during wet years. “There is plenty of water,” Ring argues, but the primary challenge in transporting water south to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and cities in Southern California isn’t infrastructure capacity—it’s environmental policies. He points to a “consensus among the bureaucrats and board directors” overseeing California’s water management that prioritizes keeping more water in rivers to support the endangered fish. “That’s true as far as it goes,” he said, but despite these efforts, the salmon and smelt populations have not recovered. Additionally, there is growing concern that sturgeon may soon be classified as endangered as well. “These endangered fish are being used as the reason to leave water in the rivers,” he said. PACIFIC PALISADES INFERNO FORCES THOUSANDS TO FLEE CALIFORNIA HOMES; GOV. NEWSOM DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY Urban areas, like Los Angeles, have highly developed drainage systems that channel stormwater directly into the ocean. They were originally designed with flood prevention in mind, not water storage, so this presents an additional challenge for the area. “They bring water in off of the California Aqueduct, and they import water into Los Angeles, and they haven’t brought enough in there, and their reservoirs are depleted,” Ring said. “But the biggest problem, because you’re not going to drain even a half-full reservoir fighting a fire, is the water infrastructure in Los Angeles, and the water infrastructure in Los Angeles has been neglected. And the reason it’s been neglected is that they want the money for other projects.” “The bottom line is they haven’t spent money on it, and they’ve justified that by saying, we have to use less water,” he continued. “And so they’ve been encouraging people, and in some cases, rationing, or even forcing people to use less water. And as a result, you don’t have a system that’s as robust.” One recent ex-California lawmaker said the state’s lack of water infrastructure is “devastating California.” ELON MUSK ANNOUNCES SPACEX WILL PROVIDE FREE STARLINK TERMINALS IN LA AMID RAGING FIRES California voters passed Proposition 1 in 2014, also known as the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act, which authorized $2.7 billion in bonds to increase the state’s water storage capacity through building new reservoirs and groundwater storage facilities. Yet as of January 2025, no new reservoirs have been completed under Prop. 1. “And here it’s been all these years, and we haven’t done a shovel full of dirt to move to make the project,” Dahle said. “The project is just not funded, and we had $100 billion in surplus, and we didn’t fund it. And so that’s the frustrating part, I think, for most Californians, is that when we had the money, and we didn’t do anything about it.” The largest of the wildfires, the Eaton Fire near Altadena and Pasadena, has scorched more than 27,000 acres, Cal Fire reported as of midday Thursday. When reached for comment, Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Fox News Digital, “The Governor is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need.”
Trump to be sentenced in New York criminal trial
President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation. The president-elect is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison. Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed. 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, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.” “The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” Trump’s filing requested. TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP Trump’s attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity. The Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10. The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts. But New York prosecutors argued that the high court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case. They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned “unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity.” Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts. 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.
Vance resigns from Senate as he and Trump prepare to take office
Vice President-elect JD Vance resigned his U.S. Senate seat as he and President-elect Donald Trump prepare to take office. Vance, who has served in the Senate since early 2023, resigned around two years into his six-year Senate term. “I hereby resign my office as a United States Senator from the State of Ohio, effective January 10, 2025,” Vance said in the resignation letter to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine that is circulating online. VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT VANCE UNDERWENT MINOR SURGERY AFTER SENATE SWEARING IN “As I prepare to assume my duties as Vice President of the United States, I would like to express that it has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve the people of Ohio in the Senate over the past two years,” Vance added. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, noted in a post on X that he “will really miss having” Vance as a Senate colleague. “Over the last two years, he’s become a dear friend and trusted ally,” Lee noted. “But the Senate’s loss is also the Senate’s gain, as he is about to become the president of the Senate—a job that belongs to the vice president.” OHIO NATIVE JD VANCE, TEXAS’ TED CRUZ MAKE WAGER FOR BUCKEYES-LONGHORNS COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF SEMIFINAL Vance reciprocated, noting that the “Feeling is mutual!” Trump and Vance, who trounced the Democratic ticket in the 2024 presidential election, will take office later this month on Jan. 20. “To the people of Ohio, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the privilege of representing you in the United States Senate. When I was elected to this office, I promised to never forget where I came from, and I’ve made sure to live by that promise every single day,” Vance said in a statement about his Senate resignation. TRUMP SPEAKS TO THE PRESS DURING MEETING WITH GOP GOVERNORS “The American people have granted President Trump an undeniable mandate to put America first, both at home and abroad. Over the next four years, I will do all that I can to help President Trump enact his agenda. Together, we will make America stronger, safer, and more prosperous than ever before,” he added.
Supreme Court weighs TikTok ban Friday; national security, free speech arguments are considered
The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It’s a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans. The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok’s request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19. It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days. The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide. ‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’: FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration. Ahead of Friday’s oral arguments, here’s what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act. TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress. TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an “unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation” and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban. “History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort,” attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court. National security concerns Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring. The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose “grave national security threats” to Americans, rather than its content. Beijing could “covertly manipulate the platform” to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail. Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued “lends further support” to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned. That evidence has not been released to the public. Political pressures The Supreme Court’s decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months. In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will “take a look at TikTok” and the divestiture case. “I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump told reporters. Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20. The brief did not signal how Trump might act. Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate “because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok. “There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review. The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation’s longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to “speculative concerns” about foreign interference, they argued, is “unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values.” They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights. Others remained deeply opposed. Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok’s arguments as “unmeritless and unsound” in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it “very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals.”
Red state AGs welcome Trump crackdown on illegal immigration after four years battling Biden
FIRST ON FOX: Twenty Republican attorneys general are prepared to bolster President-elect Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, according to a joint statement led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach shared with Fox News Digital. “The Biden Administration took dozens of executive actions that weakened border controls and sanctioned illegal immigration from around the world,” the letter states. “Republican attorneys general fought back by taking the Biden Administration to court for ending successful Trump Administration immigration policies and replacing them with new policies that violated the law and encouraged illegal immigration. The Republican attorneys general prevailed in virtually every one of these laws.” REPUBLICAN AGS DOUBLE DOWN ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LAWSUITS AS PRESIDENT PREPARES TO LEAVE OFFICE The AGs say they’re ready to restore Trump’s “America First” policies from Trump’s first administration, particularly his “Remain in Mexico policy” and mass deportations. “As we point out in this letter, the Remain in Mexico policy is something that’s found in federal statute, and it’s been in federal statute since 1996. President Trump was the first president who actually implemented that policy set by Congress,” Kobach told Fox News Digital in an interview. “President Trump has all the statutory tools he needs,” he added. “They are already in the federal code, and that’s what we’re saying too. As lawyers who have been trying to stop the Biden administration from violating the law, we are saying, ‘President Trump, you have our support, and you have a wide open runway ahead of you to renew the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.’” BIDEN MOVING TO BAN OIL AND GAS LEASES FOR 20 YEARS IN NEVADA REGION, JUST WEEKS BEFORE TRUMP INAUGURATION The attorneys general are also anticipating Trump will “fully rescind the unlawful DACA programs,” as he promised during his first term. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced in 2012 by the Obama administration, permits illegal immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as “Dreamers” — to temporarily remain in the country. In addition to Kobach, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Tennessee signed the statement. Republican attorneys general across the U.S. have been at the forefront of filing lawsuits against the Biden administration over the last four years. This month, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed his 103rd lawsuit against the outgoing administration over its energy efficiency standards for housing. GROWING CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN CANADA IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST ‘CALIFORNIA ON STEROIDS,’ SAYS STRATEGIST The Republicans have secured several legal wins. In 2021, a coalition led by then-Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry obtained a preliminary injunction against the administration’s suspension of new oil and gas leases on federal land. In May 2024, Paxton achieved a significant win in a lawsuit alleging unlawful censorship by the administration, with a federal judge denying the government’s motion to dismiss and ordering expedited discovery. And a federal judge recently vacated the administration’s Title IX rule, which had expanded protections against discrimination based on gender identity, after challenges from Republican-led states. “I think what the 20 or so attorneys general signing this statement is about what the law is and what the law requires,” Kobach said. “And … we are very grateful and expect that President Trump will return us to a country where the law is enforced and the strictures that Congress has put in place are observed.”