TikTok's plans to sue Trump Administration to end ban on Tuesday
The embattled short-form video app TikTok may launch its legal fight against an executive order banning the app in the United States on Tuesday, under grounds the ban is unconstitutional.
Shortly following the signing of an Executive Order by President Donald Trump that effectively bans TikTok and WeChat in the US from September 20, TikTok issued a statement claiming it would "pursue all remedies" against it. It appears that those remedies may start arriving in the next week.
According to a source of NPR, TikTok will be filing a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, where the app's US operations are located, as early as Tuesday.
The lawsuit will allege the order is unconstitutional as the Trump administration failed to provide a chance for TikTok to respond. Furthermore, the suit will insist the administration's national security justification for the order's creation is without merit and baseless.
"It's based on pure speculation and conjecture," said the source. "The order has no findings of fact, just reiterates rhetoric about China that has been kicking around."
In defending the order, White House spokesman Judd Deere said "The Administration is committed to protecting the American people from all cyber-related threats to critical infrastructure, public health and safety, and our economic and national security."
In its statement on the ban on August 7, TikTok claimed it was "shocked by the recent Executive Order, which was issued without any due process." After citing its attempts to engage with the US government for a "constructive solution to the concerns," TikTok believes "the Administration paid no attention to facts, dictated terms of an agreement without going through standard legal processes, and tried to insert itself into negotiations between private businesses."
TikTok went on to suggest the order "risks undermining global businesses' trust in the United States' commitment to the rule of law," and that it sets "a dangerous precedent for the concept of free expression and open markets."