Sydney Martinez, Campus Carrier opinions editor

The TikTok ban controversy gained momentum late in Joe Biden’s administration when he signed legislation requiring ByteDance — TikTok’s parent company — to either sell the app to a U.S. buyer or shut down its U.S. operations entirely. Supporters of the ban argue that “TikTok’s ties to China pose a national security threat,” according to CBS News. But let’s be real — this is not just about security. It is about control. The government is using national security as a convenient excuse to regulate what platforms Americans can and cannot use.

Trump’s role in this is even more blatant. In 2020, he pushed to ban TikTok, claiming it “mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic” according to AP news. Then, in 2024, he suddenly reversed course, hopping on the platform to campaign and connect with young voters. On Dec. 6, he urged the Supreme Court to delay any rulings on a potential ban until he took office in Jan. Then, in a last-minute attempt to keep young people on his side, he signed an executive order his first day in office, delaying the ban for 75 days. Let’s not sugarcoat it — this wasn’t about principle or policy. It was about political survival. He saw TikTok as a tool to maintain influence, nothing more.

At first, the TikTok ban was framed as a national security issue, but it has quickly become a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech — including digital speech. TikTok isn’t just an app for dance videos and trends; it is a platform where people share ideas, organize protests and engage in political activism. Banning it would be a direct attack on free expression, giving the government dangerous precedent to regulate speech under the guise of protecting national security.

And if we think this stops with TikTok, we’re kidding ourselves. The government is already creeping into social media regulation. Meta briefly restricted searches for the terms “Democrat” and “Democrats” following the Jan. 20 inauguration, displaying a “We’ve hidden these results” message before backtracking after public backlash. Meta is also restructuring its fact-checking system, which raises even more concerns about how information will be controlled — and lack thereof —in the future. When social media companies and the government start working together to dictate what we can and cannot see, we have a real problem.

So, where does the government draw the line? Right now, the government is testing the waters, using TikTok as a trial run for how much control it can exert over digital spaces. Today, it is a ban on one platform. Tomorrow, it could be any app, any website or any online space that the government deems too influential or too dangerous. National security concerns are valid, but they should not be used as a blank check for censorship.

We are already seeing what happens when governments mess with social media. Certain search terms are blocked, fact-checking policies are shifting and platforms are bending to political pressure. If we allow this to continue, social media will no longer be a tool for free expression — it will become a tool for controlled messaging, shaped by whoever is in power.

Social media is the modern public square and banning platforms that challenge the status quo is a direct attack on free speech. If we do not push back now, we are handing the government the power to dictate what we can and cannot say online. The question is not whether the government can control social media — it is whether we are willing to let them.

But in the end, what does this have to do with Trump lowering grocery prices? The TikTok ban served as a distraction from the real issues that impact Americans daily — greater pressing issues like the economy or public health.