The BBC's Analysis editor, Ros Atkins, investigates Elon Musk's recent posts on X about grooming gangs - and looks at how one day unfolded on his timeline.
EXCLUSIVE: The nation's Republican governors are making clear their "overwhelming support" for President-elect Trump's planned "Department of Government Efficiency," better known by its acronym DOGE.
In a letter to Congressional leaders that was shared first with Fox News on Friday, the governors said they fully support DOGE and emphasized the importance of balancing the federal budget.
"As chief executives for our states, we know a thing or two about streamlining government, removing unnecessary bureaucracy, and bringing efficient, result-driven solutions to state government. We stand by President Trump as he works to do the same with the federal government," the governors said.
Days after his presidential election victory in November, Trump tapped Elon Musk, the world's richest person, and former Republican presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to steer DOGE.
The House of Representatives has set up an oversight subcommittee and the Senate has formed a DOGE caucus to work with Musk and Ramaswamy.
The governors highlighted that "our states are successful because we live within our means. We balance our budgets, lower taxes, leverage surpluses, pay down debt, improve the efficiency of state governments, and create an environment where our constituents can build a prosperous future for themselves, their family, and their community."
And they emphasized that "it is past time for Washington to live within its means too. We support President Trump’s appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and agree with their assertion that the federal government needs to be cut down to size. We stand ready to help."
Led by the Republican Governors Association (RGA) policy chair Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, the letter was also signed by RGA chair Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and 24 other GOP governors.
They are Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Mike Parson of Missouri, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.
The only one of the 27 Republican governors who didn't sign the letter was Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont. While a longstanding member of the RGA, Scott has a history of not attaching his name to many of their letters.
The letter was sent the day after many of the GOP governors dined with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.
For their part the justices, both conservative and liberal, appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments in the first hour of the oral arguments.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.
First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.
It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.
The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.
Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no. "What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
President-elect Donald Trump’s winter White House is hosting a parade of House Republicans this weekend, all of whom are hoping that getting the incoming commander in chief’s ear will help an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers get on the same page on a massive conservative policy overhaul.
It is also likely to be another test of Trump’s power over Congressional Republicans and whether his influence will be enough to overcome longstanding fractures on fiscal policy.
"The president is hosting multiple factions, right? It’s not just any one. The goal is to level-set the understanding of what we can accomplish," one GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. "Nobody disagrees, in broad brushstrokes, on the large goals. But there are very specific issues that are going to create concerns for folks. And we’ve got to work through them."
On Friday, Trump is hosting members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, several of whom voted against a government funding bill the president-elect explicitly backed last month.
He is also due to meet with senior Republicans and House committee chairs, as well as GOP lawmakers from blue states.
It comes amid disagreements between Congressional Republicans on the path forward for the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism generally has allowed one party in control of the government to advance their own agenda through one massive bill.
More specifically, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to just a simple majority, putting it on par with the House of Representatives.
Reconciliation only allows for budgetary and other fiscal measures to be passed. However, both parties have traditionally tried to stretch those parameters to advance as much of their agendas as possible. GOP leaders have signaled they want to use reconciliation to deal with border security, energy policy, defense and to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
However, there is broad disagreement on whether to split those goals in half. Proponents of the two-track approach believe that passing an initial bill on border and energy policies will allow Republicans to score an early victory there while taking more time on tax policy.
However, those who advocate for just one bill argue that two reconciliation bills have not been passed in decades, given the heavy political capital needed for even one. They’ve warned that the strategy could put Trump’s tax cuts in danger of expiring.
The House GOP conference is also at odds on other details, such as whether to use reconciliation to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions – a move favored by blue state Republicans who represent the suburbs of New York City and Los Angeles, but which rural representatives are against.
"I think it's gonna be a good discussion. I think this is a great opportunity for us to discuss not just SALT…This was just about, you know, blue state Republicans coming with our priorities," said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.
The Big Apple’s new congestion tax, tax reductions for seniors living off social security, and using the tax code to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. were all agenda items Malliotakis named.
"I have much broader agenda items than just SALT, but SALT is critically important for the New York members in particular," she said.
House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., suggested the border would be at the forefront of his mind for his group’s Trump meeting.
"The main thing is, how do we move forward? It’s going to cost some money to secure our border. It’s going to cost some money to hire more agents. But at the same time, we’ve got to cut spending where we can," Moore told Fox News Digital.
"We need to be on the same sheet of music and I think we’ll have an opportunity for Trump to hear from us, but as well for us to hear from him."
Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., a staunch Trump ally who said he would also be at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, dismissed concerns about differences on issues like SALT.
"I think the dialogue is important to have. At the end of the day, we need to deliver for the American people. And so while people feel differently on various issues, it’s important to have that dialogue to figure out how we can put this thing together," he said.
Trump himself has not publicly declared the specifics of what he would want to pass via reconciliation. He has said he favors a one-bill approach, but would also be open to two.
Malliotakis and other Republicans on the tax-focused House Ways & Means Committee favor one bill.
However, a member of the House Freedom Caucus doubted that would happen.
"I think we’ll talk big-picture stuff as far as reconciliation. I’m of the mindset it’ll likely be two bills, not one. But I think that’ll happen organically, you don’t have to force it," they said.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments.
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary.
The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.
Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no. "What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
Trump was sentenced Friday morning in New York City to unconditional discharge. He was convicted last year of falsifying business records after a years-long investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Despite Trump's attempts to delay the sentencing, it went forward just 10 days before his inauguration.
The incoming president attended the proceeding virtually. "After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Judge Juan Merchan said. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts."
"What a joke and a disgrace," wrote Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., on X.
Rep. Rudy Yakym, R-Ind., sounded off on the sentencing as well, writing, "Today’s sentencing is an unfortunate reminder that Democrats will stop at nothing, including weaponizing the justice system to try and destroy President Trump. Rest assured, their efforts have and will continue to fail. America’s comeback begins in 10 days."
President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.
The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche.
Trump called the case and his sentencing a "tremendous setback for the American court system."
"This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York," Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted "decisively" to elect him as president.
Judge Juan Merchan set Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
Merchan did not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, meaning there is no punishment imposed--no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction.
"After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts."
Merchan added: "Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office."
Merchan, upon scheduling the sentencing last week, said that he was not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.
Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York."
The high court denied the request, saying "the application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons."
"First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states," the Supreme Court's order, filed Thursday night, stated. "Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing."
The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application."
Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.
Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19. Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.
Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections.
The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.
Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congressdid not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app.
Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19.
Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.
California does not have a water shortage, yet firefighters battling the brutal fires across Los Angeles are facing scarce resources to keep up with the blaze that has threatened thousands of lives, homes, land and wildlife.
Meanwhile, critics challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom’s call to "not play politics," arguing that political mismanagement is precisely to blame.
"It's all political," Edward Ring, the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center think-tank, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "The entire cause is political, and they ironically politicize it by saying it's about climate change, which is a political wedge that they use all the time, which is really one of the least of the factors causing this."
Experts lay blame primarily on the state's handling of its forestry management and a lesser-known problem, the state's outdated water reserves system. California's existing reservoirs can only hold so much water, and many were built in the mid-20th century.
Last year, the state experienced record-breaking rainfall after an atmospheric river event, but the existing water infrastructure faced difficulties managing the sudden influx of water. A significant portion of that rainfall was dumped into the ocean.
Ring also pointed to "environmentalist extremists" in the state who have pushed for heavier regulations like the Endangered Species Act, which requires freshwater to flow through rivers and into the Pacific Ocean to protect the endangered delta smelt and salmon. The mandates restrict how much water can be diverted to storage, even during wet years.
"There is plenty of water," Ring argues, but the primary challenge in transporting water south to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and cities in Southern California isn’t infrastructure capacity—it’s environmental policies. He points to a "consensus among the bureaucrats and board directors" overseeing California’s water management that prioritizes keeping more water in rivers to support the endangered fish.
"That’s true as far as it goes," he said, but despite these efforts, the salmon and smelt populations have not recovered. Additionally, there is growing concern that sturgeon may soon be classified as endangered as well.
"These endangered fish are being used as the reason to leave water in the rivers," he said.
Urban areas, like Los Angeles, have highly developed drainage systems that channel stormwater directly into the ocean. They were originally designed with flood prevention in mind, not water storage, so this presents an additional challenge for the area.
"They bring water in off of the California Aqueduct, and they import water into Los Angeles, and they haven't brought enough in there, and their reservoirs are depleted," Ring said. "But the biggest problem, because you're not going to drain even a half-full reservoir fighting a fire, is the water infrastructure in Los Angeles, and the water infrastructure in Los Angeles has been neglected. And the reason it's been neglected is that they want the money for other projects."
"The bottom line is they haven't spent money on it, and they've justified that by saying, we have to use less water," he continued. "And so they've been encouraging people, and in some cases, rationing, or even forcing people to use less water. And as a result, you don't have a system that's as robust."
One recent ex-California lawmaker said the state's lack of water infrastructure is "devastating California."
California voters passed Proposition 1 in 2014, also known as the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act, which authorized $2.7 billion in bonds to increase the state's water storage capacity through building new reservoirs and groundwater storage facilities. Yet as of January 2025, no new reservoirs have been completed under Prop. 1.
"And here it's been all these years, and we haven't done a shovel full of dirt to move to make the project," Dahle said. "The project is just not funded, and we had $100 billion in surplus, and we didn't fund it. And so that's the frustrating part, I think, for most Californians, is that when we had the money, and we didn't do anything about it."
The largest of the wildfires, the Eaton Fire near Altadena and Pasadena, has scorched more than 27,000 acres, Cal Fire reported as of midday Thursday.
When reached for comment, Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Fox News Digital, "The Governor is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need."
President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.
The president-elect is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week.
Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.
Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary."
"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," Trump’s filing requested.
Trump's attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court's ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
But New York prosecutors argued that the high court "lacks jurisdiction" over the case.
They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned "unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity."
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Vice President-elect JD Vance resigned his U.S. Senate seat as he and President-elect Donald Trump prepare to take office.
Vance, who has served in the Senate since early 2023, resigned around two years into his six-year Senate term.
"I hereby resign my office as a United States Senator from the State of Ohio, effective January 10, 2025," Vance said in the resignation letter to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine that is circulating online.
"As I prepare to assume my duties as Vice President of the United States, I would like to express that it has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve the people of Ohio in the Senate over the past two years," Vance added.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, noted in a post on X that he "will really miss having" Vance as a Senate colleague.
"Over the last two years, he’s become a dear friend and trusted ally," Lee noted. "But the Senate’s loss is also the Senate’s gain, as he is about to become the president of the Senate—a job that belongs to the vice president."
Vance reciprocated, noting that the "Feeling is mutual!"
Trump and Vance, who trounced the Democratic ticket in the 2024 presidential election, will take office later this month on Jan. 20.
"To the people of Ohio, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the privilege of representing you in the United States Senate. When I was elected to this office, I promised to never forget where I came from, and I’ve made sure to live by that promise every single day," Vance said in a statement about his Senate resignation.
"The American people have granted President Trump an undeniable mandate to put America first, both at home and abroad. Over the next four years, I will do all that I can to help President Trump enact his agenda. Together, we will make America stronger, safer, and more prosperous than ever before," he added.
The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.
The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19.
It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.
The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide.
President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.
Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.
TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.
TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform.
Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.
"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court.
National security concerns
Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring.
The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content.
Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail.
Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment.
The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned.
That evidence has not been released to the public.
Political pressures
The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.
In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case.
"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.
Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.
The brief did not signal how Trump might act.
Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.
"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.
The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment.
In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values."
They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.
Others remained deeply opposed.
Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."
FIRST ON FOX: Twenty Republican attorneys general are prepared to bolster President-elect Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, according to a joint statement led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach shared with Fox News Digital.
"The Biden Administration took dozens of executive actions that weakened border controls and sanctioned illegal immigration from around the world," the letter states.
"Republican attorneys general fought back by taking the Biden Administration to court for ending successful Trump Administration immigration policies and replacing them with new policies that violated the law and encouraged illegal immigration. The Republican attorneys general prevailed in virtually every one of these laws."
The AGs say they're ready to restore Trump's "America First" policies from Trump's first administration, particularly his "Remain in Mexico policy" and mass deportations.
"As we point out in this letter, the Remain in Mexico policy is something that's found in federal statute, and it's been in federal statute since 1996. President Trump was the first president who actually implemented that policy set by Congress," Kobach told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"President Trump has all the statutory tools he needs," he added. "They are already in the federal code, and that's what we're saying too. As lawyers who have been trying to stop the Biden administration from violating the law, we are saying, ‘President Trump, you have our support, and you have a wide open runway ahead of you to renew the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.’"
The attorneys general are also anticipating Trump will "fully rescind the unlawful DACA programs," as he promised during his first term. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced in 2012 by the Obama administration, permits illegal immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as "Dreamers" — to temporarily remain in the country.
In addition to Kobach, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Tennessee signed the statement.
Republican attorneys general across the U.S. have been at the forefront of filing lawsuits against the Biden administration over the last four years. This month, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed his 103rd lawsuit against the outgoing administration over its energy efficiency standards for housing.
The Republicans have secured several legal wins. In 2021, a coalition led by then-Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry obtained a preliminary injunction against the administration's suspension of new oil and gas leases on federal land. In May 2024, Paxton achieved a significant win in a lawsuit alleging unlawful censorship by the administration, with a federal judge denying the government's motion to dismiss and ordering expedited discovery.
And a federal judge recently vacated the administration's Title IX rule, which had expanded protections against discrimination based on gender identity, after challenges from Republican-led states.
"I think what the 20 or so attorneys general signing this statement is about what the law is and what the law requires," Kobach said. "And … we are very grateful and expect that President Trump will return us to a country where the law is enforced and the strictures that Congress has put in place are observed."
President-elect Trump set off a fiery debate over whether Democrats should be to blame for California's wildfires after he accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of caring more about protecting an endangered fish species than protecting the state's residents from wildfires.
The president-elect has long railed against Democrats in California for limiting the availability of water for Californians that comes from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the northern part of the state. He stumped on the issue during his 2016 campaign and, during his first term, Trump sought to divert more water away from a delta where the two rivers meet that is home to an endangered fish species known as smelt.
But Newsom and his administration challenged this in court, arguing opinions suggesting that the water diversion would not impact the fish were wrong. Newsom also previously opposed efforts to construct a pipeline meant to divert water south. He has overseen programs in his state that annually release hundreds of billions of gallons of stormwater buildup into the Sacramento-San Jaoquin River Delta to benefit the smelt habitat — rather than redirecting the water south for use by people in the central and southern parts of the state.
Trump set off a firestorm on Wednesday when he called out Newsom on his Truth Social platform for wanting "to protect an essentially worthless fish" over protecting the water needs of Californians. The comments are not new, however. In the run-up to the November election, Trump made the claim during an October interview with podcaster Joe Rogan.
"I was in [California] farm country with some of the congressmen," he told Rogan. "We're driving up a highway and I say, ‘How come all this land is so barren?’ It's farmland and it looked terrible. It was just brown and bad. I said, 'But there's always that little corner that's so green and beautiful.' They said, ‘We have no water.’ I said, ‘Do you have a drought?’ 'No, we don't have a drought.' I said, 'Why don't you have no water?' Because the water isn't allowed to flow down. And in order to protect a tiny little fish, the water up north gets routed into the Pacific Ocean. Millions and millions of gallons of water gets poured."
California's devastating wildfires have killed at least five people and driven hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. The Palisades Fire alone has burned through more than 17,000 acres of land, which is larger than the island of Manhattan. The damage so far has been estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.
The president-elect's claims have been paired with reports that firefighters are running out of water as they battle the blaze, prompting the state to mobilize resources to replenish empty supplies.
"There's no water in the Palisades. There's no water coming out of the fire hydrants. This is an absolute mismanagement by the city. Not the firefighters' fault, but the city's," Rick Caruso, a billionaire developer who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass for mayor in 2022, told Fox News.
The governor's press office said in response to Trump's accusations that he was completely wrong, arguing the president-elect "is conflating two entirely unrelated things: the conveyance of water to Southern California and supply from local storage."
"Broadly speaking, there is no water shortage in Southern California right now, despite Trump's claims that he would open some imaginary spigot," Newsom's office added. "[The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power] said that because of the high water demand, pump stations at lower elevations did not have enough pressure refill tanks at higher elevations, and the ongoing fire hampered the ability of crews to access the pumps. To supplement, they used water tenders to supply water — a common tactic in wildland firefighting."
Firefighters in California made progress towards slowing the spread of the fire on Thursday, according to The Associated Press. Crews reportedly were able to eliminate a fire that broke out in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening and by Thursday had lifted the area's evacuation order. Still, the fires continue to burn and most are only partially contained as of Thursday afternoon, according to reports.
Latest Political News and Updates from BBC
Latest Political News on Fox News
