Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 54
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-02658 (CJN)
`
`
`TIKTOK INC., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
`as President of the United States, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`AGAINST COMMERCE DEPARTMENT PROHIBITIONS 2-5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 54
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`TikTok Is a Massively Popular Forum for Creative Expression and
`Political Speech, Akin to a Virtual Town Square for More Than 100
`Million Americans. ................................................................................................. 2
`TikTok Has Safeguards to Protect the Security of U.S. User Data. ....................... 3
`TikTok Has Effective and Fair Content Moderation Policies and Practices. ......... 4
`For Almost a Year Before the Ban, TikTok Provided Information to
`CFIUS and Made Extensive Efforts to Fully Address Any National
`Security Concerns. .................................................................................................. 5
`The Administration’s Political Focus Moved to China and TikTok....................... 6
`President Trump Issued His August 6 Order Premised on a Purported
`National Security Need to Ban TikTok, but Subsequent Administration
`Actions Immediately Undercut That Justification. ................................................. 6
`The Commerce Department Issued Prohibitions That Will Ban TikTok in
`the United States. .................................................................................................... 8
`Plaintiffs Filed this Action and the Court Preliminarily Enjoined the First
`Prohibition............................................................................................................. 10
`The Government Provided An Administrative Record That Relies on
`Inaccurate, Outdated, And Irrelevant Materials, And Includes
`Recommendations for Restrictions Far Short of a Ban. ....................................... 10
`The Remaining Prohibitions Will Cause Plaintiffs Irreparable Harm. ................. 12
`J.
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`I.
`Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims That the
`Remaining Prohibitions Are Unlawful and Unconstitutional. .......................................... 13
`A.
`The Remaining Prohibitions Violate IEEPA Because They Regulate and
`Prohibit “Personal Communication” and “Informational Materials,”
`Thereby Exceeding Express Limitations Imposed by Congress. .......................... 13
`1.
`IEEPA Forbids Government Regulation of “Personal
`Communication” or “Informational Materials” ........................................ 14
`The Remaining Prohibitions Unlawfully Regulate Personal
`Communication. ........................................................................................ 15
`The Remaining Prohibitions Unlawfully Regulate Informational
`Materials. .................................................................................................. 17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 54
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`II.
`
`C.
`
`The Remaining Prohibitions Are Arbitrary and Capricious in Violation of
`the APA Because the Agency Provided an Inadequate Explanation Based
`on Inaccurate, Outdated, and Irrelevant Materials, Failed to Consider
`Reasonable Alternatives, and Offered a Pretextual Justification for Its
`Action. ................................................................................................................... 21
`1.
`The Remaining Prohibitions are Reviewable Under the APA.................. 21
`2.
`The Commerce Department Provided an Inadequate Explanation
`That Is Not Supported by the Record, And Which Relies on
`Inaccurate, Outdated, and Irrelevant Materials. ........................................ 23
`The Agency Failed to Consider or Explain Why Reasonable
`Alternatives That Are Set Forth in the AR Itself Were Not
`Adequate. .................................................................................................. 28
`The Commerce Department’s Stated Justification for the
`Prohibitions Is Pretextual. ......................................................................... 30
`The Remaining Prohibitions Violate Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. ............... 33
`1.
`The Remaining Prohibitions Infringe on Plaintiffs’ First
`Amendment Right to Speech. ................................................................... 33
`The Remaining Prohibitions Violate Plaintiffs’ Due Process
`Rights. ....................................................................................................... 38
`The Remaining Prohibitions Violate IEEPA in Other Respects. .......................... 41
`D.
`All of the Other Elements Required for Injunctive Relief Are Easily Established. ......... 42
`A.
`The Remaining Prohibitions Are Inflicting, and Will Continue to Inflict,
`Irreparable Harm. .................................................................................................. 42
`The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Require Injunctive Relief. .............. 44
`B.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 54
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 136 (1967) .................................................................................................................22
`
`*Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury,
`686 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................39
`
`Allied Local & Reg’l Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA,
`215 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................28
`
`Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. FDA,
`942 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2013) ...........................................................................................43
`
`Billups v. Charleston,
`961 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................35
`
`Boswell v. Heckler,
`749 F.2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................30
`
`Brodie v. HHS,
`715 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2010) ...........................................................................................44
`
`CAIR v. DOJ,
`264 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2003) ...........................................................................................23
`
`Cernuda v. Heavey,
`720 F. Supp. 1544 (S.D. Fla. 1989) .........................................................................................14
`
`Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,
`401 U.S. 402 (1971) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Clark Cty. v. FAA,
`522 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................23
`
`Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ
`of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel,
`637 F. Supp. 1398 (D.D.C. 1986) ............................................................................................32
`
`DeJonge v. Oregon,
`299 U.S. 353 (1937) .................................................................................................................38
`
`*Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) .................................................................................................23, 30, 33
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 54
`
`Edwards v. District of Columbia,
`755 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................38
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................................................44
`
`Gordon v. Holder,
`721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................45
`
`Grace v. District of Columbia,
`187 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2016) .........................................................................................44
`
`Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff,
`467 U.S. 229 (1984) .................................................................................................................32
`
`Healy v. James,
`408 U.S. 169 (1972) .................................................................................................................35
`
`*Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev. v. Ashcroft,
`333 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................22, 23, 38, 39
`
`Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC,
`567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ...............................................................................................31, 33
`
`INS v. St. Cyr,
`533 U.S. 289 (2001) .................................................................................................................42
`
`Judulang v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 42 (2011) ...................................................................................................................23
`
`*Kalantari v. NITV, Inc.,
`352 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................14, 15
`
`League of Women Voters v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................45
`
`Lovell v. Griffin,
`303 U.S. 444 (1938) .................................................................................................................35
`
`Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC,
`135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) .......................................................................................................21, 22
`
`*Mathews v. Eldridge,
`424 U.S. 319 (1976) ...........................................................................................................38, 40
`
`McCullen v. Coakley,
`573 U.S. 464 (2014) ...........................................................................................................36, 37
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 54
`
`*Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .............................................................................................................23, 30
`
`Nalco Co. v. EPA,
`786 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.D.C. 2011) ...................................................................................41, 43
`
`Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n v. United States,
`415 U.S. 336 (1974) .................................................................................................................42
`
`Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. v. Weinberger,
`818 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................23
`
`Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart,
`427 U.S. 539 (1976) ...........................................................................................................35, 36
`
`OKKO Bus. PE v. Lew,
`133 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2015) ...........................................................................................22
`
`*Packingham v. North Carolina,
`137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ...........................................................................................33, 34, 36, 37
`
`Planned Parenthood v. Heckler,
`712 F.2d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................13
`
`R.I.L-R v. Johnson,
`80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015) ...........................................................................................45
`
`*Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS,
`758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................38, 40
`
`Reeve Aleutian Airways v. United States,
`982 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................38
`
`Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad,
`420 U.S. 546 (1975) ...........................................................................................................34, 35
`
`Thompson v. Cons. Gas Corp.,
`300 U.S. 55 (1937) ...................................................................................................................32
`
`Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr.,
`535 U.S. 357 (2002) .................................................................................................................37
`
`Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia,
`314 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................38
`
`U.S. WeChat Users All. v. Trump,
`2020 WL 5592848 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2020) ..................................................................17, 34
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 54
`
`*United States v. Amirnazmi,
`645 F.3d 564 (3d Cir. 2011)...............................................................................................14, 15
`
`United States v. Menasche,
`348 U.S. 528 (1955) .................................................................................................................19
`
`*United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp.,
`529 U.S. 803 (2000) .................................................................................................................36
`
`Walsh v. Brady,
`927 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ...............................................................................................20
`
`Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.,
`139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) ...............................................................................................................22
`
`Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) .................................................................................................................42
`
`Winter v. NRDC,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) .....................................................................................................................13
`
`Woods v. Dep’t Interior,
`18 F.3d 854 (10th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................30
`
`Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC,
`794 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) .......................................................................................................................22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)......................................................................................................................21
`
`47 U.S.C. § 214 ..............................................................................................................................20
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1701(a) .................................................................................................................41, 42
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1702 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`50 U.S.C. § 4565 ......................................................................................................................20, 29
`
`Pub. L. No. 100-418 § 2502, 102 Stat. 1107, 1371 (1988) ............................................................14
`
`Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 525 (1994) ................................................................................................15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`31 C.F.R. § 560 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 54
`
`Dep’t of Justice Press Release (June 7, 2017), available at
`https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-ends-third-
`party-settlement-practice..........................................................................................................32
`
`Office of the Attorney General, Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Third
`Parties (June 5, 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-
`release/file/971826/download ..................................................................................................32
`
`Oxford English Dictionary (Sept. 2003), available at
`www.oed.com/view/Entry/255044 ..........................................................................................18
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 54
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This motion seeks to enjoin the government from banning TikTok in the United States as
`
`of November 12, 2020—a ban that would eliminate an online communication forum used by 100
`
`million Americans, on which an average of 46 million videos and 80 million private direct
`
`messages are shared every day. On September 27, 2020, this Court entered a preliminary
`
`injunction against the first of five Prohibitions issued by the Department of Commerce. That first
`
`Prohibition, scheduled to go into effect that night, would have prevented TikTok from being
`
`available for download or update on mobile application stores in the United States. The Court held
`
`that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Prohibition impermissibly regulates
`
`“personal communication” and “informational materials” in contravention of the International
`
`Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
`
`The remaining four Prohibitions set forth in paragraphs 2-5 of the Commerce Department
`
`notice (“Remaining Prohibitions”), which inarguably threaten imminent, irreparable harm by
`
`requiring the complete shut-down of the TikTok app in the U.S. on November 12, also violate
`
`IEEPA. Indeed, this Court has already recognized that its ruling that the first Prohibition exceeds
`
`the limits of executive authority under IEEPA is “equally as applicable” to the Remaining
`
`Prohibitions. ECF No. 30 at 17. Those Prohibitions are unlawful for other reasons as well. They
`
`are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), because
`
`the Commerce Department provided an inadequate explanation that relied on inaccurate, outdated,
`
`and irrelevant information; failed to explain the rejection of reasonable alternatives; and offered a
`
`pretextual justification for the ban. The Remaining Prohibitions also violate Plaintiffs’
`
`constitutional rights by restricting their protected speech in violation of the First Amendment, and
`
`depriving them of liberty and property interests without notice and an opportunity to be heard, as
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 10 of 54
`
`the Fifth Amendment requires. Finally, the Remaining Prohibitions are unlawful under IEEPA
`
`because they are not based on a bona fide national emergency and prohibit activities that have not
`
`been found to pose “an unusual and extraordinary threat.”
`
`Plaintiffs’ first preliminary injunction motion advanced these same claims against all the
`
`Prohibitions. Because the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success
`
`on the first Prohibition under IEEPA, however, it “[did] not analyze Plaintiffs’ other statutory and
`
`constitutional claims to decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary relief.” ECF No. 30
`
`at 14 n.3. The Court “note[d],” however, “that Plaintiffs appear to have presented at least serious
`
`questions on their other claims.” Id.
`
`This renewed motion seeks an injunction against the Remaining Prohibitions based on all
`
`of the claims in Plaintiffs’ first motion. This motion (i) addresses the Administrative Record
`
`produced by the government after the last round of briefing, and (ii) incorporates supplemental
`
`declarations from company representatives and a national security expert that contain additional
`
`facts relevant to these claims. While the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ arguments remains the same,
`
`these updates reinforce the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and demonstrate even more clearly that
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against the Remaining Prohibitions, which exceed the limits
`
`of the executive branch’s power under federal statute and the Constitution.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`TikTok Is a Massively Popular Forum for Creative Expression and Political
`Speech, Akin to a Virtual Town Square for More Than 100 Million Americans.
`
`TikTok is an application (or “app”) that provides an online communication platform for
`
`users to create and share short-form videos. See Pappas Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 15-3. TikTok is
`
`operated by Plaintiff TikTok Inc., an American company incorporated in California and
`
`headquartered in Los Angeles with a U.S.-based management team, and its parent company,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 11 of 54
`
`Plaintiff ByteDance Ltd. (“ByteDance”), which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has
`
`offices in the United States, China, and elsewhere. TikTok is not and never has been offered in
`
`China, Cloutier Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 15-2, and TikTok was designed to be completely separate from
`
`ByteDance’s China-facing applications, id. ¶ 8. See also Supp. Cloutier Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.
`
`TikTok users communicate on TikTok in a variety of ways. Users can record videos within
`
`the TikTok application, or they can record videos on their device outside the app, and then upload
`
`them to the app. Supp. Pappas Decl. ¶ 8. Users can post these videos on the platform in both
`
`public and private modes. Id. They also can communicate directly with other users in a variety
`
`of ways. For example, users can send private direct messages to one another, id. ¶ 7; use the
`
`“Livestream” function to communicate live with their followers, who in turn can post comments
`
`that the user can respond to in real time, id. ¶ 9; comment on videos and “tag” other users in the
`
`comments, id. ¶ 10; and use the “Duet” or “Stitch” functions of the app to create new content that
`
`incorporates content created by others, id. ¶¶ 12, 14.
`
`Today, based on quarterly usage, more than 100 million Americans use TikTok, and until
`
`recently, it was adding 424,000 new U.S. users each day. Pappas Decl. ¶¶ 9, 18. On an average
`
`day, U.S. users send 80 million private direct messages on TikTok, and five million U.S. users
`
`view communications shared using TikTok’s Livestream function. Supp. Pappas Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.
`
`B.
`
`TikTok Has Safeguards to Protect the Security of U.S. User Data.
`
`TikTok confronts the same data security risks as other entertainment and social media
`
`platforms, and its approach for dealing with such risks is consistent with industry best practices.
`
`Weber Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, ECF No. 15-4. TikTok segments U.S. user data and imposes access controls
`
`and auditing policies that limit and track access to such data. Id. TikTok also encrypts user data
`
`in storage and during transmission using the same industry-standard protocols as major banks and
`
`e-commerce platforms, and limits management of encryption keys to TikTok’s U.S.-based security
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 12 of 54
`
`team. See id. ¶ 10; Cloutier Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Before any China-based engineering personnel may
`
`access encrypted U.S. TikTok user data, they must receive express permission through a process
`
`overseen by TikTok’s U.S.-based team. Cloutier Decl. ¶ 12; Weber Decl. ¶ 10.
`
`Another industry-wide policy issue faced by entertainment and social media platforms is
`
`the integrity of algorithms that are used to recommend content to users. Weber Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13.
`
`There is no evidence that TikTok’s source code has been compromised in a way that would allow
`
`the app to be used to censor content or spread misinformation. See id. ¶¶ 14-17. To protect the
`
`integrity of its source code, TikTok deploys industry standard workflow systems that require
`
`employees to obtain appropriate authorizations to access source code. Id. Such access is
`
`continually monitored and logged, and TikTok’s source code undergoes both internal and third-
`
`party reviews to guard against any potential vulnerabilities. Cloutier Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.
`
`C.
`
`TikTok Has Effective and Fair Content Moderation Policies and Practices.
`
`Plaintiffs have invested substantially in capabilities to remove content that violates its
`
`Community Guidelines—such as hate speech and child sexual exploitation materials. Han Decl.
`
`¶¶ 5-6. Content posted on TikTok is reviewed by automated software tools as well as by human
`
`moderators enforcing the Community Guidelines. Id. ¶ 6. To actually remove content, TikTok
`
`uses software tools that are entrusted to Plaintiffs’ U.S. Safety team, based in Los Angeles and led
`
`by an American, Eric Han, who has prior content moderation experience at a number of U.S.
`
`companies, including Google and Twitter. Id. ¶ 10. This U.S.-based team supervises TikTok’s
`
`front-line human moderation teams, none of which are located in China. Id. ¶ 11. If a
`
`determination is made that a user’s content should be removed, the user can appeal, and a member
`
`of the U.S. Safety Team will then determine who removed the content, why, and whether it was
`
`consistent with TikTok’s policies. Id. ¶ 13.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 13 of 54
`
`TikTok has continuously improved its content moderation policies and practices. When
`
`TikTok was launched in 2017, its content moderation policies drew upon existing policies for
`
`legacy and other products. Id. ¶ 15. Beginning in 2018, those policies were revised and replaced
`
`by localized policies reflecting local norms and customs in each country where TikTok is available,
`
`including in the United States. Id. In 2019, Mr. Han was appointed as head of the U.S. Safety
`
`team, overseeing U.S. content moderation teams, and later received responsibility for all content
`
`moderation policy for the U.S. market, thus separating all U.S. content moderation from the global
`
`team. Id. ¶ 16. In March 2020, TikTok established a Content Advisory Council consisting of U.S.
`
`academics to strengthen TikTok’s content moderation policies and practices, and its overall
`
`transparency in that area. Id. ¶ 17.
`
`D.
`
`For Almost a Year Before the Ban, TikTok Provided Information to CFIUS
`and Made Extensive Efforts to Fully Address Any National Security Concerns.
`
`In 2019, ByteDance was notified that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
`
`States (“CFIUS”) was considering whether to review a 2017 acquisition by ByteDance of
`
`Musical.ly, a China-based video-sharing application that was merged with TikTok and largely
`
`abandoned. From October 2019 through August 2020, Plaintiffs provided voluminous
`
`documentation in response to CFIUS’s questions, including about Plaintiffs’ data security
`
`safeguards. Notwithstanding the U.S. government’s failure to identify any security risk, Plaintiffs
`
`provided extensive information to the government in good faith to address any conceivable
`
`concerns the government might have. Ex. 3.1 They also proposed a number of mitigation
`
`strategies, which would allow the U.S. government to mitigate any claimed national security risks
`
`
`1 The exhibits cited herein are those filed with Plaintiffs’ first motion, ECF No. 15.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 14 of 54
`
`around TikTok’s user data and algorithms beyond what it could achieve with TikTok’s domestic
`
`competitors. See Weber Decl. ¶ 18.
`
`E.
`
`The Administration’s Political Focus Moved to China and TikTok.
`
`While Plaintiffs were responding to CFIUS’s requests, the political climate changed, and
`
`China, and ultimately TikTok, became an increasingly prominent political focus of the President.
`
`In early 2020, President Trump stated that he had “a great relationship with President Xi,” Ex. 5
`
`at 1, and that “[t]he United States greatly appreciates [China’s] efforts and transparency [on the
`
`Coronavirus],” Ex. 4 at 3. But, soon thereafter, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the U.S.
`
`and the domestic economy worsened, the President and members of his Administration began to
`
`use increasingly harsh anti-Chinese political rhetoric and repeatedly sought to blame China for the
`
`pandemic. See, e.g., Ex. 8 at 5.
`
`In the summer of 2020, it was reported that TikTok users had used the app to coordinate
`
`mass ticket reservations for the President’s campaign rally in Tulsa, resulting in an embarrassment
`
`for the President’s campaign when significantly fewer persons appeared for the political rally than
`
`projected. Ex. 9. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the Administration
`
`was “looking at” banning TikTok. Ex. 10. The President’s reelection campaign then ran Facebook
`
`advertisements asking supporters to “sign the petition now to ban TikTok.” Ex. 11.
`
`F.
`
`President Trump Issued His August 6 Order Premised on a Purported
`National Security Need to Ban TikTok, but Subsequent Administration
`Actions Immediately Undercut That Justification.
`
`On August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Addressing the
`
`Threat Posed by TikTok.” See Ex. 12. The order speculated—without any evidentiary support—
`
`that ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok could allow China to access and misuse U.S. user data,
`
`and that the Chinese government may censor or use TikTok content for propaganda purposes.
`
`Invoking IEEPA, the order prohibits “any transaction” by “any person, or with respect to any
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02658-CJN Document 43-1 Filed 10/14/20 Page 15 of 54
`
`property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” with “ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié
`
`Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, in which any such company has any interest, as
`
`identified by the Secretary of Commerce.” Id. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to “identify
`
`the transactions subject to” the ban within 45 days and declares that the transactions are prohibited
`
`“beginning 45 days after” the August 6 order, i.e., September 20, 2020. Id.
`
`In the following weeks, statements by senior government officials made clear that the
`
`August 6 order was inspired by considerations other than any supposed national security concerns
`
`attributable to the use of the TikTok app. On August 20, for example, Undersecretary of State
`
`Keith Krach acknowledged that the TikTok ban is “really about . . . three things”—none of which
`
`have anything to do with the supposed national security threat alleged in the August 6 order:
`
`(i) “the Communist Party’s surveillance state and 5G is the backbone”; (ii) “that great China
`
`Firewall where all data can go in, but none come out”; and (iii) “reciprocity, because our apps
`
`aren’t allowed in China . . . look at YouTube or Google search.” Ex. 13.
`
`On August 14, 2020, invoking CFIUS, the President issued a separate executive order
`
`titled “Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd.,” which purported to order
`
`ByteDance to divest the U.S. TikTok business. Ex. 14 (“CFIUS order”). In contrast to the August
`
`6 order, which stated that TikTok must be banned from the U.S., the premise of the CFIUS order
`
`was that divestment of the business would address the President’s purported national security
`
`concerns. Indeed, on September 19, 2020, the President explicitly embraced an approach that did
`
`not require banning the TikTok app. He informed reporters that he had given his “blessing” and
`
`“approve[d] . . . in concept,” Ex. 24, a mitigation