TikTok Act: National Security and Constitutional Scrutiny
National Security Assessment & Constitutional Questions Surrounding the TikTok Act
Introduction
TikTok’s American future has become a controversy exposing deep tensions between constitutional balance, free speech, & national security. Two interrelated claims organize this debate. First, there are legitimate national security reasons for changing Americans’ relationship with TikTok, & the course materials R biased toward this claim. Second, George Washington & James Madison would approve the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act itself but would disapprove of how Presidents Biden & Trump have handled it. Both claims hold validity when examined through the provided sources & the constitutional philosophy of the Founders.
Sources Cited
(#1: PBS Article) – Why TikTok is being banned for some federal employees
(#3: Eur1ws Article) – Which countries have banned TikTok & why
(#5: Supreme Court Ruling) – TikTok Inc. v. Garland (2025)
(#6: Reddit Post) – r/privacy: What exactly is the security concern with TikTok?
(#7: PBS Article) – Biden won’t enforce TikTok ban, leaving fate of app to Trump
(#8: National Review Article) – Congress Must Compel Trump To Enforce the TikTok Law
Argument 1: National Security Justifications & Source Bias
Each of the assigned readings presents a compelling argument that TikTok poses a genuine national security threat because of its ownership structure & data practices. The U.S. Supreme Court Ruling explains that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance Ltd., is required under Chinese law to “assist or cooperate with the intelligence work of the Chinese government” & to provide Chinese officials with “the power to access & control private data” (#5: Supreme Court Ruling). This legal obligation places TikTok at a unique risk of becoming an espionage tool. The Court also found that TikTok collects extensive information about its users—including location, contacts, & private messages—& that such access could allow China to “track federal employees, engage in corporate espionage, or build dossiers for blackmail” (#5: Supreme Court Ruling).
The PBS News article supports this reasoning by citing bipartisan concern that China could use TikTok’s enormous data pool to influence public opinion & harvest sensitive information. Both the FBI & Federal Communications Commission warned that TikTok might share user data with the Chinese government, & more than half of U.S. states have banned the app on government devices as a precaution (#1: PBS Article). Similarly, the Eur1ws article documents that other democracies—including the United Kingdom, Australia, & members of the European Union—enacted similar bans, citing nearly identical data-security concerns (#3: Eur1ws Article).
The global alignment of these democratic governments reinforces that these fears are neither isolated nor partisan but grounded in legitimate cybersecurity concerns.
However, the sources also reveal, intentionally or not, a measure of bias in framing. By emphasizing official government perspectives, the readings present the issue almost entirely through a national security lens. The Reddit discussion, for example, questions whether TikTok is being unfairly targeted compared to other Chinese companies like Temu or Shein, suggesting that political or economic motives may play a role in the ban (#6: Reddit Post). This selective presentation—highlighting government voices while minimizing dissenting or neutral ones—demonstrates what communication scholars call framing bias. The materials therefore validate the national security rationale but also confirm that the course content is framed in favor of that interpretation.
Argument 2: Founders’ Approval of the Law’s Intent
George Washington and James Madison would likely approve both the purpose and the constitutional process that lead to the TikTok legislation. Both believed that liberty and order must live together—too much liberty leads to disorder, while too much control leads to tyranny. Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10 stated that government must “control the effects” of harmful factions without destroying liberty itself. The TikTok Act reflects this principle: it does not restrict speech or content but instead addresses foreign control that could be used to manipulate or exploit American citizens. It is, in essence, a defense of liberty through the preservation of order.
George Washington would have agreed with this rationale. As president, he personally led the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion to preserve domestic tranquility, demonstrating that government must act decisively to protect the Union. Washington’s famous remark that “government is not reason, it is force” captures his belief that power must be used responsibly to maintain order. Preventing a foreign power from gaining control over American data & communications would, for him, constitute a legitimate exercise of that power. The law’s passage through Congress & its review by the Supreme Court also align with Washington’s belief that national security decisions should arise through institutional processes rather than unilateral presidential action.
Founders’ Likely Disappointment with Presidential Actions
While Washington & Madison would have supported the law’s purpose, they would be disappointed by how Presidents Biden & Trump executed it. The PBS News article shows that President Biden refused to enforce the TikTok ban before leaving office, leaving implementation to his successor (#7: PBS Article). President Trump, who had once called TikTok a “Chinese Communist spy app,” later reversed his stance for political gain & also failed to enforce the law he had sworn to uphold (#7: PBS Article).
Andrew McCarthy’s National Review article is even more critical, accusing Trump of violating his oath to “faithfully execute” the law after it had been upheld by the Supreme Court (#8: National Review Article). McCarthy claims that political convenience shouldn’t override enforcement, as the president would then undermine the checks and balances that Madison viewed as essential to prevent tyranny. Both presidents, even though for different reasons, demonstrated the very executive abuse—or inaction—that the Founders warned against. Washington’s Farewell Address cited that personal ambition must never supersede the rule of law, a principle both leaders failed to keep in this case.
Conclusion
Together, the readings confirm that there are sound national security reasons for the TikTok Act & that the provided sources favor that perspective. Yet, they also reveal the enduring wisdom of the Founders’ warnings about constitutional restraint. Washington & Madison would have recognized the Act as a legitimate defense of the republic but would have been troubled by the modern presidency’s politicization of its enforcement. The TikTok debate, therefore, is not only about a social media platform—it is about whether American leaders still honor the constitutional balance of liberty, order, & responsibility envisioned at the nation’s founding.