David French on the Case for Banning TikTok

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Opinions – David French on the Case for Banning TikTok

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Description: One voice, one opinion, in 10 minutes or less.
• Episode: David French on the Case for Banning TikTok
• Release Date: January 13, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions, hosted by Kathryn Miller from the New York Times Opinion section, legal analyst David French presents a compelling argument for banning TikTok in the United States. The discussion delves into national security concerns, the implications of Chinese ownership, and the broader impact on American society.

---

The Case Against TikTok

National Security Threats

David French initiates the conversation by highlighting the imminent Supreme Court decision on whether the federal government can ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, refuses to divest. He emphasizes the gravity of the situation:

“This is one of the more immediately consequential cases that the Supreme Court will hear this term… about 170 million Americans who will be immediately affected who use the TikTok app regularly” (01:04).

French explains that his support for the ban stems not from concerns over the content on TikTok but from the control exerted by the Chinese government:

“Who controls TikTok is of enormous consequence, and the Chinese government does not have a constitutional right to operate in the American public square” (02:28).

Data Privacy and Government Control

Kathryn Miller probes into TikTok's claims of safeguarding US data, questioning the evidence of Chinese authorities accessing American user information. French responds by dissecting the corporate structure of TikTok, emphasizing the complexities and the inherent control exerted by Beijing:

“TikTok is headquartered in Beijing… the Chinese Communist party committee within ByteDance, that there is a long history of direct Chinese control over Chinese corporations” (03:58 - 04:14).

He argues that the separation between Chinese government and TikTok is minimal, contrasting it with American companies' relationship with their governments.

---

Potential Misuse of TikTok's Algorithm

Manipulation and Misinformation

Delving deeper, French outlines a worst-case scenario where TikTok’s algorithm could be weaponized to spread Chinese propaganda or misinformation, especially during geopolitical tensions:

“If it's a Chinese-controlled platform… the algorithm is the mechanism that either boosts or suppresses certain kinds of content… The Chinese government could start to flood… its own messaging” (04:46 - 05:50).

He envisions a future where TikTok could influence public perception and even affect military decisions, drawing parallels to Cold War-era concerns about foreign influence.

Access to Personal Data

French also raises alarms about the potential for personal data misuse, suggesting that Chinese operatives could exploit TikTok’s access to American users for blackmail or targeted misinformation campaigns:

“Chinese operatives would be able to perhaps blackmail influential Americans based on information in their direct messages… during the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had direct access to communicate with more than 100 million Americans… it's unacceptable now” (06:13 - 06:29).

---

Comparing US and Chinese Corporate Governance

Free Speech Protections

A significant part of the discussion contrasts the constitutional protections American companies enjoy versus the lack thereof for Chinese entities. French posits that American CEOs could, in theory, manipulate content, but they are bound by First Amendment rights:

“Mark Zuckerberg as an American citizen and Meta as an American company, possesses First Amendment rights… the Chinese Communist Party does not” (07:49 - 08:22).

He argues that this fundamental difference underscores the inherent risks of allowing Chinese control over a major social media platform in the US.

---

Broader US-China Economic and Strategic Concerns

Economic Interdependence

French expands the conversation to the broader economic ties between the US and China, criticizing the longstanding strategy of economic integration as a means to foster political liberalization in China:

“We are now very linked economically with China in a way that we were never linked… we need to be disentangling from China because China has demonstrated that it will take all of the benefits of trade with America while maintaining all of its totalitarian control” (09:11 - 10:37).

He emphasizes the challenges of unwinding these deeply entrenched economic relationships, particularly in critical sectors like food supply and technology.

---

Political Dynamics and the Future of the TikTok Ban

Influence of Political Figures

Kathryn Miller raises questions about the political maneuvering surrounding the TikTok ban, especially with Donald Trump’s involvement. French provides insights into Trump’s shifting stance:

“Trump filed a brief in the Supreme Court that reads as if it was filed in North Korea… it's basically asking the Supreme Court to set aside and delay the implementation” (13:04 - 13:49).

He speculates that Trump’s opposition may be driven by strategic interests, such as TikTok’s significant presence among MAGA supporters and its potential as a political tool.

Public Reaction and Uncertainty

Addressing public perception, French anticipates confusion and frustration among TikTok users if the ban is upheld, noting the lack of clear communication from political leaders:

“Millions of Americans… are going to be puzzled, stomped, confused and angry when it doesn't work… I honestly, I don't know what's going to happen after this thing goes off” (14:35 - 15:48).

He foresees a possible backlash and an uncertain future for the app in the US marketplace.

Predictions on TikTok’s Future

When asked about TikTok’s availability in six months, French cautiously optimizes for a possible sale rather than a complete ban repeal:

“I'm going to very tentatively say yes because of a sale… it's too much money to be made selling this thing with 170 million American eyeballs” (16:07 - 16:10).

He acknowledges the app’s entrenched user base and the economic incentives that might prevent it from disappearing entirely.

---

Conclusion

David French articulates a nuanced perspective on the TikTok ban, balancing national security concerns against free speech principles. His analysis underscores the complexities of regulating foreign-owned social media platforms and the broader implications of US-China relations. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome remains uncertain, poised to significantly impact millions of American users and shape the future of digital privacy and national security.

---

Notable Quotes:

• David French (01:04): “This is one of the more immediately consequential cases that the Supreme Court will hear this term… about 170 million Americans who will be immediately affected who use the TikTok app regularly.”
• David French (02:28): “Who controls TikTok is of enormous consequence, and the Chinese government does not have a constitutional right to operate in the American public square.”
• David French (07:49): “Mark Zuckerberg as an American citizen and Meta as an American company, possesses First Amendment rights… the Chinese Communist Party does not.”
• David French (13:29): “President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the electoral mandate and the…”
• David French (16:09): “I'm going to very tentatively say yes because of a sale… it's too much money to be made selling this thing with 170 million American eyeballs.”

---

Attribution: This summary is based on the transcript of the podcast episode David French on the Case for Banning TikTok from The Opinions by The New York Times Opinion, released on January 13, 2025.

Transcript

[Host]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[Kathryn Miller]

Hi, I'm Kathryn Miller, a writer and editor in the New York Times Opinion section, where I focus on politics.

[David French]

I'm David French.

[Unnamed Columnist]

I'm a columnist in New York Times.

[David French]

Opinion, where I focus on law, politics, and culture.

[Unnamed Speaker]

The US Supreme Court is weighing whether the federal government can ban TikTok if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, refuses to sell. The US is arguing that TikTok poses a serious threat to national security and must ultimately find a new owner or be shut down. TikTok officials say the law violates free speech rights.

[Kathryn Miller]

David, I really wanted to talk to you about your very strong opinion about TikTok. You've written that you think the app should be banned in the United States because of national security concerns. As a legal expert and as somebody who spent your career fighting for free speech, I'd really love to walk through how you think about this issue.

[David French]

Well, thanks so much, Katherine. This is, interestingly enough, one of the more immediately consequential cases that the Supreme Court will hear this term or arguably over the next couple of years. Because if the Supreme Court upholds the ban of TikTok, which requires TikTok to shut down unless it divests itself of its Chinese control, that's about 170 million Americans who will be immediately affected who use the TikTok app regularly. That's an awful lot of people. But the reason why, even though I am a lifelong free speech advocate, I support the ban on TikTok this particular law, is because the issue here really isn't about the content of the speech on TikTok. Everything that's on TikTok you could put.

[Unnamed Columnist]

On Instagram and it would be fine.

[David French]

Facebook, it would be fine. Maybe not fine from the standpoint of it being worthwhile content. There's a lot of trash on TikTok, but constitutionally, fine.

[Unnamed Columnist]

The issue here is control.

[David French]

Can we allow a social media company.

[Unnamed Columnist]

That the government believes to be under.

[David French]

The direct control of the People's Republic of China to have that kind of access to. To American data and to the American public square?

[Unnamed Columnist]

And that's the real issue, in my view.

[David French]

Who controls TikTok is of enormous consequence, and the Chinese government does not have a constitutional right to operate in the American public square. And in fact, there's a lot of.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Potential dangers and problems if we allow China to have that continued access.

[Kathryn Miller]

Well, let's talk about those national security Issues kind of one by one with personal information. TikTok claims that US data is cordoned off. Do we have evidence that Chinese authorities have access to U.S. data or are using it in a way that they shouldn't?

[David French]

Right. I think you've raised a really important point here.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Yes, TikTok does claim that it has.

[David French]

Walled off its US data. It has multiple subsidiaries. This is a complex corporate form here that we're dealing with, with American subsidiaries.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Cayman island companies, with ByteDance, which owns.

[David French]

TikTok headquartered in Beijing.

[Unnamed Columnist]

And so there is a lot of.

[David French]

Dispute between TikTok and the US government over this issue of control and access. And TikTok is trying to argue to the American public that in fact they wall off American data, that all of that is contained, that there are controls and systems in place to prevent the kind of access the US Government is worried about. And the government's counter is essentially, wait, no, you are misunderstanding the way the.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Chinese government views its corporations. If you think that a corporate separation.

[David French]

Between the Chinese government and TikTok is really meaningful because in fact, the government would point out that there is a Chinese Communist party committee within ByteDance, that there is a long history of direct.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Chinese control over Chinese corporations.

[David French]

And so it's just apples and oranges to compare the way the American government interacts with corporations with the way Chinese government interacts with corporations.

[Unnamed Columnist]

That's the government's position.

[David French]

But it's important to note that TikTok disputes this, that TikTok disagrees.

[Kathryn Miller]

We'll talk a little bit more about how US law treats these different things, but just to like drill down specifically into the national security concerns, I know you have a very specific concern about kind of the algorithm or the way that TikTok could be used. What's your like, worst case scenario?

[David French]

Right, my worst case scenario, I unspooled over a dispute over Taiwan where there's evidence of a Chinese military buildup that.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Looks dangerous to the Pentagon.

[David French]

And I, I wrote a scenario imagining.

[Unnamed Columnist]

This a couple of years in the future that it says, let's say it's September 2026 and you're seeing evidence of.

[David French]

A buildup and the Pentagon cancels shore leave, it starts to put Marines on.

[Unnamed Columnist]

High alert in the Pacific.

[David French]

And so what does all that have to do with TikTok? Well, if it's a Chinese, ultimately Chinese.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Controlled platform with Chinese control over the.

[David French]

Algorithm, and the algorithm is the mechanism that either boosts or suppresses certain kinds of content, you could see that immediately.

[Unnamed Columnist]

The Chinese government could start to flood.

[David French]

Into the the hands of 170 million Americans. Its own messaging. It could promote messaging, conspiracy theory messaging that says that the orders to report to ships were fake orders. It could promote Chinese government messaging over the status of Taiwan, say, comparing it to Hawaii.

[Unnamed Columnist]

All of these things that if you.

[David French]

Have immediate Chinese control of communication to 170 million Americans, it doesn't take, you know, a genius just figure out that that kind of control could be abused in some rather scary ways. And then you add on to that concern the problem of the access to personal data.

[Unnamed Columnist]

And you could immediately see where Chinese.

[David French]

Operatives would be able to perhaps blackmail influential Americans based on information in their direct messages, say, on TikTok, or information.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Related to their activity online.

[David French]

And this would be something that, you know, Americans who grew up in the Cold War. Just imagine if during the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had direct access to communicate with more than 100 million Americans. We would have found that unacceptable during the Cold War. It's unacceptable now.

[Kathryn Miller]

And I think when this was going through Congress, one of the things that lawmakers were little unsettled by was TikTok actually sending notifications asking people to call their lawmakers during the negotiations of the bill.

[David French]

Right, right.

[Kathryn Miller]

Kind of to this end. And obviously that's a very different thing.

[David French]

Than Taiwan, but, like, it actually backfired on TikTok because it demonstrated the exact problem in real time. Look, Tik Tok can sort of flip.

[Unnamed Columnist]

A switch and turn into an engine of political activism.

[David French]

Well, that's one thing. If it's political activism with Congress over a matter affecting TikTok directly, it's another thing entirely. If it's political activism regarding the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.

[Kathryn Miller]

Right. And so this kind of gets into another thing. There's actually a history that I didn't know that much about before this came into play last year, about how U.S. law treats foreign ownership of media companies, and then also just the differences between Americans constitutional rights and then those of abroad. Like, how does US Law treat these things differently?

[David French]

It's a. It's a really good question. And in fact, when I talk about TikTok, I get that question a lot. I mean, is Mark Zuckerberg a better person to control the algorithm than, say, ByteDance? And the answer to that question really.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Is kind of binary in the sense.

[David French]

That will Mark Zuckerberg as an American citizen and Meta as an American company, possesses First Amendment rights, the People's Republic of China does not. And so while we may dislike the.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Choices that Meta makes with its algorithm.

[David French]

Or say that X makes with its algorithm. We may dislike those choices, but those choices are protected by the Constitution. And these American people and these American.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Entities, they have American constitutional rights.

[David French]

And so, you know, in theory, Zuckerberg could become very pro China and he could promote Chinese content on Meta. And even though that could be dangerous, it could be misinformation, it could be propaganda, there would be constitutional protections.

[Kathryn Miller]

One thing I've been thinking about also is that there are other companies that are Chinese owned or have Chinese interests involved in them. Thinking about things like Smithfield Foods, do you have the same kind of national security concerns about other industries, or is TikTok unique as a media company?

[David French]

Well, I'm concerned about both, but in the short term, I'm more concerned about TikTok because of that immediate ability that ByteDance has through TikTok to affect American debate, to access information about Americans.

[Unnamed Columnist]

But we also have a much larger.

[David French]

Bigger problem that is really related to choices, strategic and economic choices we made a couple of generations ago, quite frankly, where the theory was that if we.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Can economically integrate China into the global.

[David French]

Economy, if America and China can be more closely economically linked, and if we can economically liberalize China, that we will also politically liberalize it. And, you know, this was not a belief that people just held blindly. They looked at the Soviet Union. They looked at how the opening of the economy and the opening of the marketplace of ideas in the Soviet Union may have contributed ultimately to the Soviet Union's collapse. But it turned out that that theory, at least so far, has not panned out. And so what's happened is we are now very linked economically with China in a way that we were never linked.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Economically with the Soviet Union in a.

[David French]

Million different ways that are going to be very hard to unravel, but we.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Should, especially when it comes to things.

[David French]

Like food supply, vital national resources, technology.

[Unnamed Columnist]

We need to be disentangling from China.

[David French]

Because China has demonstrated that it will take all of the benefits of trade with America while maintaining all of its totalitarian control over its citizens and all of its geostrategic ambitions abroad.

[Kathryn Miller]

I mean, one of the other kind of open questions right now in terms of the next couple months is, so the Supreme Court is hearing this case. We'll see how they approach it. Donald Trump has filed an amicus brief and he's nominated Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State. He's chosen Mike Waltz to be his national security advisor. These are considered hawkish conservatives on China. From a national security perspective. Donald Trump wants to keep TikTok open for Business or maybe he wants to negotiate a deal. Like, let's say the law goes into effect. Do you think Trump will be trying to repeal the law?

[David French]

Katherine, the maga, Trump politics of this are weird. It's a journey. It is a journey. So if you go back, the Trump administration was leading the charge on banning TikTok. And in fact, Trump tried to take measures to ban TikTok in the last year of his term. He tried it and for a long time, sort of within the MAGA world. This was one of your few overlaps between traditional Reagan conservatives, like say me and MAGA populace.

[Unnamed Columnist]

We have very little overlap on policy.

[David French]

But both MAGA and traditional Republicans are hawkish on China and, and Trump had been previously more hawkish on China. And so this was one of those rare sort of elements of bipartisan agreement between the MAGA populace, the traditional conservatives.

[Unnamed Columnist]

National security minded liberals and Democrats.

[David French]

And this is one of the reasons why it had broad bipartisan support when it was passed. And then Trump changes his mind and he doesn't just change his mind a little, he changes it a lot and vows to ask people to vote for.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Him to save TikTok.

[David French]

And the question is why?

[Unnamed Columnist]

Why did he do it?

[David French]

And nobody has the definitive answer. But what we do know is that one of Tik Tok's major investors became a Trump supporter. We know that Trump and MAGA have a very vibrant presence on Tik Tok. Trump has almost 15 million followers on Tik Tok. And so there's a question as to whether Trump now sees this in his self interest. Now it's not so weird for Trump.

[Unnamed Columnist]

To change his mind.

[David French]

What's weird is Trump filed a brief in the Supreme Court that reads as if it was filed in North Korea. And, and why do I say that? I'm going to actually quote to you some parts of this brief. President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal making expertise, the electoral mandate and the.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national.

[David French]

Security concerns expressed by the government. As I wrote, that's not a legal argument. That's a love letter to dear Leader Trump. And it's basically asking the Supreme Court to set aside and delay the implementation.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Of a law passed by Congress signed.

[David French]

By the current President of the United States because the incoming president is just such a great deal maker, he'll get this done even bigger and better. But that's not how all this works, Catherine. I mean, this is, this is just weird, weird stuff.

[Kathryn Miller]

Thinking a little bit about how this intersects with how people feel about the government. Let's say it is. The ban does go through. They don't divest, you know, the average TikTok user. Like what. What would they be thinking about? And specifically, I mean, do you think people would appreciate the national security concerns about why this is taking place? I think the question I'm kind of circling around is, do you think people will understand why this is happening?

[David French]

Oh, I'm so glad you asked that question. And I've got an easy and immediate answer. No, people will not understand what is happening. It is amazing to me the importance of this case as far as its direct and immediate relevance and for a lot of older listeners, and I'm going to put myself in that camp. I'm a grandfather, So I qualify. TikTok is no loss. But for millions and of other Americans.

[Unnamed Columnist]

This might be their primary source of news and entertainment.

[David French]

I mean, we're. We're talking about an app that is extremely addictive. If the Supreme Court upholds this ban and TikTok is not sold, there are going to be millions of Americans who pick up their phone and press the TikTok app and are going to be puzzled, stomped, confused and angry when it doesn't work. And there's been a leadership vacuum on this issue. Biden's not out there talking about it. Trump is opposed to it. Because of Trump's opposition, a lot of some of the stalwart Republicans who had supported this have gone silent. So I honestly, I don't know what's going to happen after this thing goes off, if there's going to be such an outcry, you know, that there's an.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Immediate repeal of the law.

[David French]

I don't know. We're going to be a bit in uncharted waters.

[Unnamed Columnist]

But I'm so glad you brought that.

[David French]

Up, because get ready for an awful lot of people, parents, get ready maybe for your kid to walk in and say, what happened to my app?

[Kathryn Miller]

And then just kind of. Lastly, can I ask for your prediction? Do you think TikTok will be available to download in the United States in six months?

[David French]

In six months, is TikTok available to.

[Unnamed Columnist]

Download in the United States?

[David French]

I'm going to very tentatively say yes because of a sale. Not because the law was repealed, but. But because there is too much money to be made selling this thing with 170 million American eyeballs, pairs of eyeballs, ready to be. You know, watch it. It's hard for me to think that this thing's going to go completely silent even if the ban is upheld. This is not something that we've seen. It's like in the modern era, so I don't know what will happen.

[Kathryn Miller]

David, thank you so much for taking the time.

[David French]

Well, thanks so much for chatting with me, Katherine.

[Host]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sofia Alvarez, Boyd Bishaka Durba, Phoebe Lett, Christina Samulewski, and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sohota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samulewski, and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose, Dresser.