As time ticks on President Donald Trump’s 75-day extension for TikTok, millions are wondering about the fate of the app and the precedent the ban may set. TikTok has been unavailable to download from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store since the platform’s original ban on Jan. 19.

Last spring, Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act which gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance, until Jan. 19, 2025, to sell the platform to an American-owned entity. 

Under Trump’s recent executive order, he advised the U.S. Attorney General to not enforce the ban, giving the app more time to find a new owner. 

Elon professor of journalism Israel Balderas, has been outspoken about the impact the executive order and ban could have on future interpretation of the First Amendment. Balderas said Trump’s executive order ignored the actions of the other two branches of government entirely.


This interview was edited for clarity.

Can you tell me a little bit about why you’re invested in the TikTok ban and why it’s important to you?


The reason that I’ve been following TikTok is because what’s really important to me is the First Amendment right. I teach Media Law and Ethics here at Elon University, and it’s a required course. And for me, I think media law teaches students not just about the law, but about the importance of why we have the first amendment right, or why it’s this beautiful cherished right that we have to be able to speak our minds and not be worried about government intervention regardless of our thoughts, right? And so for me, the TikTok ban is a perfect illustration of what happens when the government uses its full force to silence people.


The ban was first brought up in the Biden administration, and by Trump’s first administration. Tell me more about that process.


So originally, Trump, in his first term, wanted to ban it, and he wanted to do it unilaterally through executive authority, and that was impossible. Then when the Biden administration came in, they tried to negotiate a sale from the parent company of TikTok, ByteDance, to sell it to an American company. And we’re talking about two or three years of the process. Then Congress passed a law, and essentially the law said, ‘Because TikTok is a American-based company, but it’s owned by a Chinese based company, and we’re concerned that China’s government may be influencing what ByteDance does with its algorithms, we are going to force a sale.’

The law was problematic to me on its face, because Congress would say, ‘We don’t like TikTok because of its values, because of its point of view, because of where it’s located.’ Number one, to me, that’s egregious viewpoint discrimination. Certainly you know the law in the United States is that a foreign entity can’t have a First Amendment right the way an American entity does. But TikTok is an American company, and so I was concerned that Congress thought it had the power to be able to do this under the First Amendment, and then Biden signed it into law, and it had a prolonged period of time. So TikTok could try to sell within that time period. I think where it really ramped up for me was the Supreme Court decision, because I thought, even if Congress passes a law, and even if Biden signs it into law, to me, the law is unconstitutional on its face.


Do you think that this move by President Trump has the possibility of giving the government too much power over personal actions that people take with their use of social media?


Let’s at least talk about what troubles people who have strong opinions, one way or the other, left or right. There was no outcry among young people when Congress passed the law. And remember, Congress passed this law, that is a direct law, but it was part of an appropriations bill. I mean, it was buried with other supplemental bills. But when Biden signed into law, there weren’t marches. There were people saying, ‘Oh my gosh, you know, we’re gonna vote against Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democrats.’ There wasn’t really a political element to it.

Trump single handedly, even before he came into power, and then after he came into power, unilaterally decided through executive orders, ‘I’m going to ignore what Congress said, I’m going to ignore what my predecessor did, signed this into law, I’m going to ignore what the Supreme Court said about this law, and I’m just going to let the process of selling the app continue,’ that’s problematic to me, regardless of the outcome.

Any time a president of the United States ignores the three branches of government, that is not a good thing. That is not a political issue, that’s not because he’s a Democrat or a Republican, it’s just the president of the United States is supposed to enforce the law, and he hasn’t. Having said that, who’s going to say, ‘Mr. President, you’re violating the rule of law?’

However, what I am troubled by is that he thinks, ‘Well, the government can own half of TikTok.’ Anytime the government owns the channels of communication, that is problematic, because the government can control that precious thing I called the marketplace of ideas, where you and I exchange what we think, what we believe. So what I always say is the government has no business controlling the highways and byways of which we communicate.

However, then the other side to that equation is that Trump is a patron president, and that is he is going to pay attention to the people who praise him the loudest, who give him the most money, and who he sees as a powerful constituency. And TikTok is a powerful constituency – 170 million people. And so he is going to do what politicians do, right? If they’re not kissing babies, they’re taking their lollipops, so he understands the moment, which is, ‘I can use my power to give you a voice,’ but I always go, ‘Mr. And Mrs. America, or my young students, be careful when the government comes in and says, I’ve got a deal for you, because that’s not a good thing.


Do you think that this is going to set some sort of precedent for either other companies selling in order to become American-owned, or just the government being able to get rid of those companies’ access in the United States?


Certainly to me, that’s what was concerning, right? If you’re going to go after TikTok, because you’re concerned about China, what about Politico, owned by a German company? What about Al Jazeera? There are lots of other entities that are foreign-owned. And we’re starting to already see the Federal Communications Commission start to put this, what I call, the fist into the backs and say, ‘You know, be careful what you do and how you speak about Trump.’

And so you’re already starting to see that people, whether it is that Trump uses the threats of defamation law or the threats of getting rid of licenses for NBC or Comcast or CBS.

Just recently, for example, Trump was threatening to sue CBS because they wouldn’t release the full transcript of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. CBS relented. They gave them the transcript. I mean, like, ‘Oh my God no, you can’t do that.’ You cannot turn over the material that we gathered as press people, because the government threatens. You go, ‘Take me to court and let’s fight it out.’

And that’s what’s really concerning to me, is that people are thinking, is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the fight worth it? Because in the end, is the Supreme Court really going to watch our backs? Is the First Amendment really going to be protecting us? Is freedom of speech and freedom of press and freedom to petition your government against redress? Is that really protected? Or do we give in now? And what I’m seeing is that we’re giving in now and again. So you can understand why this one thing I’m saying, this is not about social media app. This is about how my students, my kids, the future of leadership in America, how are they going to fight the system? How are they going to fight the government? Because what I’m hoping is they see this and they go, ‘If we don’t fight for the First Amendment now, slowly and surely, we’re going to lose this, right.’ I’m seeing it out there. I’m hoping that my students will go, ‘Oh hell no.'