in mexico policy and make sure that it's in place. >> fantastic. i think travis might be alive today if that policy had been in place. let me ask you about cbp one, the phone app that i've called concierge service for illegal immigrants. i'm sure you're familiar with it. this was the biden administration's effort to allow asylum seekers to apply ahead of time using their phones, but denied any evidence that they needed asylum. there is a newspaper report, a press report that said the only problem with the app is it never asks users are you seeking asylum? they don't ask for any asylum evidence. they simply release these so-called asylum seekers who use the app into the country on parole. sometimes they're never given a hearing. the inspector general actually did a report, a full investigation report on cbp one and found that frequently, users of this app were claiming the same addresses in the united states as their intended destination, even though they didn't know each other, they weren't family connections. in other words, it

has been completely abused, and the idea that the federal government would pay for this kind of concierge service for illegals, i think is outrageous. will you end the use of the cbp one app? >> yes, senator, if confirmed and i have the opportunity to be secretary on day one, cbp one will be shut down. there's data and information in there that we will preserve so that we can ensure we know who's coming into this country and who's already here, that we need to go find. but also we make sure that there's another program, ccnv, which i'm sure you're you're very familiar with where our federal government actually paid to fly people into this country directly from other countries without any vetting or or knowing who they are. so there's several of these programs that need to be eliminated, and we need to ensure that we're following legal immigration laws. >> i'm glad you just mentioned ccnv. this is another this is a mass parole program. of course, as you know, our law allows parole and only very limited circumstances. there are two circumstances and it requires case by case evaluation. the present administration, soon to be gone, has granted mass parole

in direct defiance of the law, not case by case evaluation. the ccnv program is one of those instances. will you put a stop to this abuse of our parole law and our asylum system? >> yes. we will go back to case by case evaluation of these parole cases and ensure. >> hello, i'm ana cabrera and we interrupt our coverage of this hearing to bring you breaking news from the supreme court. >> with a tiktok ban set to take effect sunday. the justices have just handed down their decision on this controversial law, a decision that affects some 170 million americans who currently use the app. >> nbc's ryan riley is outside the supreme court reading into this decision. what can you tell us, ryan? >> so the so the court has upheld the ban. so tiktok will not be allowed in the united states. >> these fines would go into place. >> but the but joe biden and the president has said that for the one day that this would be effective before he leaves office as president of the united states, that he is not

going to enforce that. so the law itself has been upheld. this is a major blow for tiktok, and overall, it will be removed. the app store will have to remove the app. the app will no longer update to existing accounts, and essentially it will become defunct within a matter of months if enforced. but donald trump, of course, has said has asked in an unusual move had asked the supreme court to even he has expressed some support for tiktok. in fact, the tiktok one of the chief executives is coming to trump's inauguration and he has asked he has had an unusual filing before he actually became president to sort of let give him room to make an ultimate decision on how this will play out going forward. >> so there is and here's a quote that we have, there's no from the supreme court ruling. there is no doubt that for more than 170 million americans, tiktok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement and source of community community. >> but congress has determined that this investiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security

concerns regarding tiktok's data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary, meaning china for the. for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioner's first amendment rights, and they said that the judgment of the of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit has been affirmed. it is so ordered. so that is a major blow for tiktok. and obviously its fans across across the country. and we're going to have to see how this is going to play out once donald trump takes office. >> okay. ryan riley, thank you. >> please stand by and stay with us. but do continue to read in and come back to us. aaron gilchrist is at the white house with us also joining us, nbc news business and data correspondent brian chung and former federal prosecutor barrett berger. our lisa rubin, msnbc legal correspondent, is with me here on set as well. so, lisa, you know, tiktok's lawyers had really tried to argue this was a first amendment case. are you surprised at all by this ruling? >> i'm not for a couple of

reasons. first, on anybody who watched that oral argument or listened to it, rather would know that the justices were deeply suspect of the argument, that this presented real first amendment concerns. and even justice sotomayor, who concurred in the judgment here, meaning she agrees with the end result, but perhaps for slightly different reasons, says the question we face today is not the law's wisdom, only its constitutionality. given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, i cannot profess the kind of certainty i would like to have about the arguments and record before us. all i can say is that at this time and under these constraints, the problem. and i want to get back to what the problem is, appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional. and the problem that justice sotomayor is referring to is the national security problem that the government talked about repeatedly in its briefs and at its oral argument. the argument was twofold that tiktok presents a national security concern in two ways. one, because its owners and the chinese

government, by association, can use it to harvest data about all the people who are using it. and two, the algorithm can be manipulated to push out to users content that the owners and again, by extension, the chinese government wants us to see, allowing them not only to control what we see, but perhaps to have undue influence on our elections and otherwise. so no, i'm not surprised by this result. do i think this is the end of the story? however, i don't i think there are a number of things and innings left to play, so to speak, both for congress and for the incoming president and maybe even for the biden administration in its remaining hours to do to extend the life of tiktok, perhaps find another buyer and or give them more time to consider what its options are. i mean, at this point, brian, this ban goes into effect on sunday. >> it's two days from now. what can these 170 million americans who have the app currently use it? there's all of these small businesses that are part of the app and are generating money for the american economy. what can

these people expect to happen? >> yeah, well, our understanding was that any sort of company that basically provides tiktok services would not be able to do so starting on sunday. so what that would look like is not being able to download the app through the app store on google or iphones, and then also not being able to update the app. now, as far as whether or not if you already have it installed on your phone, you'd be able to continue scrolling. well, that was an open question, and it actually sounded like the tiktok council in oral arguments, didn't necessarily know if it was going to be operable, at least for those that already have the app. but we just heard from ryan down in dc that was saying that the biden administration said that it doesn't plan on levying that penalty, as written in the law for vendors that would be providing tiktok with those services. so if you were, let's say, an oracle and you use your servers to allow people to scroll on their phones on this app, well, they might not be penalized if the biden administration says, at least for that one day on sunday, we won't enforce it and then allow the trump administration once inauguration happens on monday, to then deal with that issue. if that is the case, there is

reason to think that maybe those that have tiktok won't necessarily have their services interrupted. but again, these are big questions. the way that this happens in practical terms is very much unknown. it is a weekend as well. i don't know if everyone at tiktok us is going to be in the office on that day. a lot of outstanding questions. but again, it could be the case that we don't see any difference on sunday. but it could also be the case that we might see some sort of lag or some sort of interruptions. for those that do have the app, let me read from the opinion as well. >> we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioner's first amendment rights. >> the judgment of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit is affirmed. >> so that again, just saying essentially, this has lost in multiple courts. >> as far as the challenge to the ban, the ban is upheld. that ban is set to go into effect on sunday. barrett lots of questions remain then in terms of what's next, because as we've heard, both the biden administration as well as the incoming trump administration

have expressed their desire to do something that could potentially delay the ban from going into effect. >> first of all, just your reaction to this ruling. >> and do you see legal avenues to proceed here? >> yeah, i liked how lisa said it. i think there definitely are still innings left to play here. i'm not surprised by this opinion. i think after watching the oral arguments and hearing how the justices were signaling, how they saw this issue, this isn't surprising, particularly given that the d.c. circuit's opinion was very well written and also by three judges that really were across the ideological spectrum. as far as what comes next, i think there's a lot of question there. so president elect trump has indicated that now he is a supporter of tiktok and maybe trying to do things to undo this ban. i think there are several things that could happen, right? i mean, you could imagine a world where president trump directs his attorney general, bondi, not to enforce this law.

i think that would put companies like apple and oracle in a really tricky situation. do they follow the letter of the law, or do they trust the president's assurances that the justice department is not going to enforce it? the law also gives president trump some wiggle room in how he would determine whether or not a divestiture, actually, or a sale had actually occurred. so one could also imagine a situation where president trump, who, you know, really has touted himself as the ultimate deal maker, gets into the weeds here and tries to help either facilitate some sort of a divestiture or is able to somehow define whether or not a divestiture has happened such that the app can continue to operate in the united states. >> but i like that analogy. there are definitely still innings left to play. >> i think this is still some unsettled questions here. >> i mean, could trump come in on the 20th and issue an executive order or even biden before he leaves, issue an executive order hit and pause, saying, let's extend the

decision to ban at least for certain number of days. >> i mean, i think that's a question. he tried to do that back in the first trump administration. he tried to ban tiktok by executive order, and that's where the supreme court had stepped in and said, actually, we can't do this by executive order. we're in a different position now. so, so possibly. but i think that would also have to go in front of the court. so it's unsettled, no doubt. barrett, please stay with us. >> brian, i'm curious if there is any action in terms of somebody potentially swooping in at the last minute and purchasing tiktok from bytedance. >> yeah. and as lisa and i have kind of been looking through the opinion, i mean, it's mentioned a number of times that, look, there is a way that tiktok could have avoided all of this, which is that they could have divested the company. so i think that now that we have the supreme court decision, it's basically upholding the law, which said if tiktok doesn't want a ban and people still can, if people still want to scroll on tiktok,

then bytedance, which is its chinese parent company, would just have to sell the company. now, whether or not there will be a buyer out there is a question that the trump administration is going to have to answer. if we know that, let's say, for example, there isn't a disruption to the app on sunday. again, president trump gets inaugurated on monday and then he could try to find some sort of solution. i think a qualified divestiture is the way that it's described in the law. maybe it's not a wholesale purchase of the whole company. maybe it's a substantial stake that's purchased in tiktok us as a subsidiary. that would then allow the president to say, you know what, in my view, as the president, that basically checks the box of a qualified divestiture, please carry on. >> but again, serious buyers, though at this point, not that we've really heard of. >> i mean, there have been some reported rumors that maybe elon musk could be someone. again, this is a very complicated situation because this isn't a phone call from one boardroom to the other. you have the chinese and also the us government that would be involved here. but what we do know is that it would take time to make that happen. so does that look like perhaps some

sort of trump action to kick the can down the road temporarily to get, let's say, a few extra months to then ink some sort of deal or some sort of a purchase. but again, that's, that's very much uncertain. >> and to brian's point, you know, former and future president trump asked the supreme court for exactly that. he wanted a stay to give him time to negotiate a different solution, in their opinion here. and again, this is a unanimous opinion of the court. two justices wrote separately, but they are all in agreement. this is an unsigned opinion. they did not give incoming president trump what he asked for a stay of the law. they upheld the law just as it is. so if there is a solution here, either it has to be found and the next couple of days, or we could talk about a solution where, for example, tiktok could go down for a couple of days and then be revived by a qualified divestiture. there are a number of different solutions here, but one of them is not the supreme court saying to president trump, hey, you can press pause because we trust that you can negotiate a different solution to this law than the one that presently

exists. >> it sounds like they're saying the law is very clear here. >> they don't need more time to decipher what the decision should be. and let me read from the opinion, the challenged provisions are facially content neutral. >> they impose tiktok specific prohibitions due to a foreign adversaries control over the platform, and make divesture a prerequisite for the platform's continued operation in the united states. they do not target particular speech based upon its content. >> let me bring in aaron gilchrist from the white house. >> and, aaron, we know the biden administration was trying to maneuver here. should this be the outcome of the supreme court's decision, should the ban be upheld or, you know, the possibility of supreme court hadn't ruled yet? do we know what the biden administration is prepared to do, and what options are there right now as they see it? >> well, effectively, as your guests have noted, the biden administration is prepared to do nothing if when this law goes into effect on sunday, two administration officials have

told our team that the plan from the biden administration is not to start doling out billions of dollars in fines to the app store, to the apple app store or to google play if they allow these applications to continue to function on their platforms. >> we have to sort of step back to the last couple of months of the biden administration when, for example, the press secretary, karine jean-pierre, has been asked repeatedly if the white house wanted to see this ban go into effect, and she repeatedly said that the white house doesn't want to see a ban. this law calls for a divestiture, and that it expected bytedance to be to adhere to the law from that perspective in terms of trying to sell the platform, obviously that's not something that has not happened. and so in the last several hours, late last night, we learned from some administration sources that the biden administration does not plan to start finding these companies that support the tiktok platform because they allow it to continue to function. and so i think given the fact that this does happen

on a sunday, monday is a federal holiday. with the inauguration of the new president, we should not expect to see any action, any movement from the federal government in terms of enforcing this law. now it is going to be a law, and therefore it does have to be enforced in some way. at the same time, the understanding that we have at this point is that we won't start to see fines enacted if there is no action taken on part of the technology companies. that would be sort of caught up in this law. the trump team, the transition team for president trump, has said that this is a platform that he favors. we saw mike waltz, the incoming national security advisor for president elect trump, say on television just yesterday that that team is actively engaged in trying to figure out how to make sure tiktok does not get shut down here in the united states. he said that this is something that was useful and good for the trump campaign. at the same time, the president elect does want to protect american data. and so the political will here

in washington, and i think both from the current administration, the incoming administration and on capitol hill, is to figure out a way to allow this this platform to function for the millions and millions and millions of users in this country, but also to keep in mind that there is a belief that there is a national security threat involved here, and they've got to sort of figure out how to how to walk the line to make sure that those two things can be addressed. >> but that's what i don't understand, aaron, because there was such strong bipartisan support of this law and the potential ban, if not sold, to an american buyer. >> and so now it just seems like everybody has buyer's remorse. >> explain the change in posture given the national security concerns haven't gone anywhere. >> i think you ask a really good question. there hasn't been a deep explanation of sort of why the shift, other than we know that the president elect does favor or support or likes this platform. we understand that the ceo of tiktok is was invited to

attend the inauguration on monday. and i think there's been this glut of, of reaction from users of the platform calling their senators, calling their representatives, flooding capitol hill with their disdain for the decision to move forward with this law. and so now there's this this i think perhaps there was a hope months ago, a year ago, back in april when this law was signed, when this was signed into law by president biden, there was maybe some hope that bytedance would figure out a way to sell at least a lion's share of the company to an american company, and that simply hasn't come, come to pass. and so now they're trying to figure out, well, how do they, again, make sure that that they can address national security concerns, but also recognize the will of 170 million users in this country? >> erin, stay with me. >> i want to go back to ryan riley at the supreme court. >> i know you've been reading in further. what do you got for us? >> yeah. >> so i think judge gorsuch's opinion concurring is interesting to look at, because

what he says here is that, you know, he notices that the court rightfully refrains from endorsing the government's asserted interest in preventing the covert manipulation of content as a justification for the law before us. >> so this is basically this notion that they didn't really decide on. this wasn't the basis for the decision that, you know, that tiktok could have been used to manipulate americans views, right? or, you know, some sort of propaganda tool. and that and what he says here actually compares it to publishers and journalists and other speakers and what they do, saying that one man's covert content manipulation is another's editorial decision. journalists, publishers and speakers of all kinds routinely make less than transparent judgments about what stories to tell and how to tell them. and so, you know, the way that he ultimately ultimately ends up ending this is saying that the question that they face today is not really about the law's wisdom, only its constitutionality. he says that, you know, he was very worried, very, very worried about the time constraints here and how quickly they had to come together with this decision that says that he doesn't feel as

though they had enough really time to really go all over all of the details here, but says, you know, on the record before us, he said, all i can say is that this time, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears to be real and the response to it is not unconstitutional. so narrowing the question of constitutionality or whether then this was, you know, not gorsuch endorsing necessarily that this was the best strategic way. just speaking plainly on the constitutionality about whether this law can be upheld, as the supreme court did here. >> and so let me bring in laura jarrett, nbc senior legal correspondent. i want to get your reaction to this ruling. laura, it seems as though everyone was engaged in a game of chicken, and the government thought that this would prompt a divestiture. the whole hope was that we were going to do a law that is so strict that you'll have to go dark, and so you're going to sell it. and then they didn't. and now we're here. and so at this point, if they don't enforce a duly executed federal law, where does that leave us?

how are they going to decide? and if i'm the general counsel of this company, how am i going to just sort of go along with the hope that we're hearing that they might not enforce it? that's not really that's not really anything to go on. it leaves the company, i think, in a really precarious position, and it leaves the hosts that are going to host this platform, like apple and google, in a really precarious position. on the other hand, it's so massively popular that that's sort of why we are in this position, that everyone is being told that both administrations don't want to enforce this. no one wants to touch this ban because they know how popular it is. people are making their businesses off of this app, and it's just such a weird position to be in. now, granted, the trump administration has discretion. they could decide. we don't want to enforce this law, right? there's plenty of laws that are on the books that are not enforced. there are laws against jaywalking, but they don't get enforced every day. but will apple or will google say, okay, your word is good enough for me? and what if the political winds change? as we've already seen, they have the president elect first didn't want this app at all. he thought there were national security

concerns. then he got on the app during his reelection campaign and saw how successful it is. and then he changed his tune. and so i think those types of shifting political winds are tricky for a company that is trying to figure out how to make a smart business decision. >> and i think just to jump on laura's point, i mean, you know, there's just so much confusion and uncertainty, not just among users of tiktok, but among the general counsel at these companies over how they're going to handle the next few weeks, specifically because there's uncertainty over how, even once donald trump enters office on monday, how he's going to tell his doj not to enforce a law that was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed by the previous president. so if you are the lawyer over at apple or a lawyer over at google, are you really going to say, okay, yeah, i saw that. there's some reporting out there that biden isn't going to enforce this on sunday, and some reporting that trump's going to do something, which we don't know what that looks like. are you still going to take on that risk for what could be billions of dollars in fines and penalties, by allowing that app to still exist on your store, by

allowing people to update their app. and i think that that bleeds down to the users as well. people, understandably, who have been using tiktok, these 170 million users have no idea what's going on here. they're not really aware of the nuances of the supreme court argument of the of the first amendment defense that that the company was trying to use. they just know, i think i'm going to lose the 100,000, in some cases, a million followers that i have on this app. >> well, and, you know, laura brought up the economic component here, and our reporting is more than 7 million people in the us do business on tiktok. >> brian. so what does this mean for them? could they pivot to another platform pretty easily? how does that work? >> yeah, well, you don't just import all those followers to another platform that easily. i mean, there are plenty of other social media apps that you can go to. and we saw one that's been gaining popularity as of late, called xiaohongshu, which literally translates to, by the way, it's another chinese app that translates to little red book. it's called red note, but the literal translation xiao small red shoe book. so that is kind of interesting. and the

symbolism is underscored by the fact that a lot of the tiktokers that are starting up, you know, accounts on this platform where the whole terms and conditions are entirely in chinese, it's symbolic. they don't really intend to try to take their hundred thousand or million followers over there. they're just trying to say, you know what? if the us government is concerned about me using a chinese app, i don't care about my stuff being on a chinese app. i just want to prove a point that i should be able to go wherever i want to go to say my point. and small business owners may be feeling the same way, but they're really left without many options right now. >> but could they go really where they want to go? >> i have more to go on this, but before then, i want to go right back to aaron gilchrist because we now have a statement from the white house. >> what do you got? >> yeah. just getting the statement from the press secretary, karine jean-pierre. and i'll just read it as it's popped into my email here. the administration, like the rest of this country, of the country, has awaited the decision just made by the us supreme court on the tiktok matter. president biden's position on tiktok has been clear for months, including since congress sent a bill in

overwhelming bipartisan fashion to the president's desk. tiktok should remain available to americans, but simply under american ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by congress in developing this law. given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration, which takes office on monday. the reality is that on a sunday, the possibility that you would have government lawyers reaching out to take some legal action against the tech companies that the platforms apple and google and things of that sort, the idea that the government would take action against them on a sunday simply isn't logical. i think on monday it's a federal holiday. so you wouldn't have government lawyers necessarily going out on monday to do that. and so now they've said the biden administration is saying, effectively, donald trump will become the president at noon on monday, and it will be up to his justice department to figure out how and what to do with with

this law and with the companies that are would be impacted by it. >> anna, laura, jared, does it get more complicated given this transition? i think it gets simpler because what he's essentially saying there is that the biden administration has punted it to the next administration because of the pure logistics and realities of bringing an enforcement action against a company like this. you can't do it in a day. and so it's sort of an easy offload for them to just allow it to fall to the trump administration. but again, it sort of takes the teeth out of a federal law. if a federal law that he signed and sort of the message that it sends, i think is fascinating. if the app wasn't so popular, would we be here if the app didn't have 170 million users a month, would we be talking about this? it's just i think it raises a whole host of really tough questions. if donald trump didn't have tens of millions of followers on it and hadn't been so successful in it, would we be talking about this? would he have flip flopped his position because he was arguing for the national security reasons that

we've heard others argue, and that was so important to the court, right? i mean, the court's decision, ana, i think if i were explaining it to my dad, i would say it has two facets. one is this isn't really a first amendment concern in the same way that many are, because it's content neutral. they're not regulating a particular lane of speech. they're regulating a communications platform, is what the court says. and therefore it gets sort of a less rigorous standard of review by the court. but the other thing that seems to be very persuasive, and i'm going to quote from justice gorsuch's concurrence here, is that he concludes whatever standard of review that the court uses, he's persuaded that the law seeks to serve a compelling interest, preventing a foreign country designated by congress and the president as an adversary of our nation, from harvesting vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of americans. now, going back to what lauren brian were talking about before, about what do you do if you're a general counsel of any of these companies that is reliant upon and distributes tiktok? i think that gets more complicated in a way on monday, because we have

heard some inklings that president trump intends to issue an executive order, but issuing an executive order that essentially thwarts a law of congress is a very different proposition than issuing an executive order. in the absence of legislation and the legality of that executive order. i don't know if i'm a general counsel, if i take any real comfort in the fact that trump puts forward a piece of paper that says, i essentially decree that the law banning tiktok, effective january 19th, is something that we will not pay attention to as a nation, or we will stall for some period of time. the legality of that executive order, in and of itself, is something that will be challenged and how fast the divestiture can happen, as opposed to legal questions and challenges to that executive order is something we're going to have to wait and see. there's also the piece that brian had kind of pointed to just a moment ago, which is these other apps that are popping up and suddenly becoming popular, that are also chinese owned or run by chinese owned companies. and so, brian, you know, you've got read note

or read book, depending on your translation. thank you for doing that for us earlier. then you have lemon. eight is another one. >> again, though it doesn't remove the issue at hand here, which is who owns it, which government in effect is controlling the content and the algorithms and all of that. >> so i guess my question for our legal experts here is, does this ban on tiktok then in effect, apply to these other chinese run platforms? >> it depends, right, because the law is supposed to apply to communications platforms of a certain variety that are controlled by foreign adversaries. and i think it would go to the heart of who is running red book or red note. what is the structure of that company? if it looks a lot like tiktok and its structure, or bytedance, so to speak, then i think that, yes, somebody will have to make the determination that the law covers it. but if in fact, it is a company that is controlled by the chinese government or the department of

state, the department of justice wants to make that determination. i don't see any reason why the law wouldn't apply with equal measure. this is not a law. while it was written with tiktok in mind, it is not a law that applies to tiktok alone. the law itself defines foreign adversary as including china, iran, russia, korea. so there are a number of different types of companies that could be implicated here. just right now, our focus is entirely on tiktok. >> and some examples of some companies, like temujin are the ones that kind of first come to mind. these are these e-commerce apps where you can buy like a $3 shirt or like 900 light bulbs for a dollar. i mean, it's super cheap. they basically do drop shipping directly to the united states. and a lot of people, millions of americans, use that app already. and in fact, what was interesting about those companies, which are chinese, is that they were thrown under the bus effectively by tiktok counsel during their arguments. so whether or not i mean this law does not necessarily apply to them in the same sense that, you know, it does to tiktok, because tiktok is a communications social media app as kind of defined by the law.

but nonetheless, you do wonder about whether or not if congress wants to take the same stature on another type of chinese company, whether or not they would be subjected to that as well. and i will point out really quickly, you mentioned lemon aid. that is a company that has ties to bytedance, the chinese owned company that owns tiktok. so again, like whether or not you see tiktok perhaps go away at some point, you know, be it six months from now or a year from now, does bytedance just start up another company and then use a shell game with a domicile in some other jurisdiction to get around that? >> like you cut off the head of the snake and then two new ones go back. but but brian is the us media social media environment not competitive when it comes to this sort of thing? i mean, is there a reason why it's more chinese companies and apps or chinese owned businesses that are seemingly pulling users from tiktok to the other platforms versus pulling them to an american owned company? >> as i mean, it's the algorithm, right? the algorithm is what kept people going to tiktok. not that it was chinese. the algorithm was super powered, and i think that people that

preferred to build a brand off of themselves or whatever they were creating online on tiktok versus let's say, instagram versus a snapchat, is because of the algorithm and that fit feed. it's basically like a casino. fip allows you to just open up your app and you're served stuff from people that you do follow. but tiktok is also sending you content that they think that you will like, based off of the other stuff that you've engaged with. now, instagram has a very similar function, but it was tiktok that did it better than anyone else. and the reason why they got so much following now, that algorithm is also the reason for why it was such a hot button issue on the divestiture, because the argument was that if tiktok had to get divested by bytedance, then another owner would not be able to get the algorithm because the chinese government would veto the sale of the algorithm along with the subsidiary. so if that's the case, yeah, you can sell tiktok. there's the intellectual property in that beautiful little logo, but you don't get the algorithm. it's basically not the same app. so i think the algorithm is what kept people going. a lot of people still use instagram, let's face it. i mean, it's still an enormously

popular app that is us made us held. at the end of the day, there are a lot of people that are saying, you know what? i just love that fight. i love the tiktok algorithm, and if that's not there, i'm not coming back. >> it's it must be addictive in some ways. >> and we do know social media has that property. i want to bring in wired senior writer kate nibs. kate, we spoke yesterday and you were hoping for the opposite outcome here. you want to see tick tock, tick tock. stay in the us and accessible to americans because of first amendment issues you had brought up. but we know that didn't fly with the supreme court. what's your reaction to this ruling? >> you know, although i would have liked to see it go a different way. i also understand why they ruled the way that they did, as as gorsuch mentioned, it was about the constitutionality of the law as it was written, that that was how that they they made this ruling and the law might be stupid, politically toxic, but it also might be constitutional nonetheless. >> and so where do you think

users on tiktok are going now? >> what do they do on sunday if the app goes dark? >> i think that we're going to see a lot stronger backlash than we've already seen. i think that we'll see continued migration to red note and other new platforms. i'm also assuming that meta is a big winner here. i think we'll see an uptick in people switching to instagram reels and really trying to build their vertical video platform there. so there will be definitely migration and definitely a huge outcry. >> we talked here about this game of chicken as it seemed to be, and this threat to bytedance, that if you don't sell, you're not going to have the american base for your business. >> 170 million americans who use this app. >> my understanding is india has a similar ban on tiktok. and it went away in india, and they had

even more people who use the app in that country. >> but tiktok survived, right? >> yes. i mean, i think the thing that a lot of people aren't realizing here is that this is not really an existential crisis for tiktok. it's absolutely a blow to the company. there's a massive user base here, but the idea that tiktok is now going to be desperately scrambling to sell its american wing, i just think it's wishful thinking that tiktok is going to all of a sudden decide that it's game to sell to elon musk or frank mccourt, or another us option. i really will be surprised if it divests. yeah, i don't think that this is worth it for tiktok to make a sale at this point. >> part of the ruling or this decision talks about the risk to federal employees. >> let me quote from it. if, for example, a user allows tiktok access to the user's phone contact list to connect with others on the platform, tiktok can access any data stored in

the user's contact list, including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles and other notes. access to such detailed information about us users. the government worries may enable china to track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage. >> what do you make of that? >> i think that's a perfectly reasonable concern that the government has. the national security concerns are not completely specious. they're there. and i think that federal employees in particular need to follow a set of guidelines that would protect them from surveillance from foreign adversaries. i think that a rule that would prohibit federal employees from having tiktok on their work phones, for example, would be perfectly reasonable and prudent. so, yes, there are national security concerns here. i just think that the national security concerns aren't

actually siloed to tiktok itself. you know, there are national security concerns with people using social media or, frankly, the internet in general because of the way that their data is often sold by american companies like meta to foreign entities. >> that's interesting. although american laws are different than the laws in china, the chinese communist party ruling there. kate knibbs, i always appreciate your insights and your reporting. thank you very much for joining us. we're going to take a quick break. everybody else, stay with us. >> more on this breaking news when we come back. >> are you overwhelmed with identity management in the context of omnipresent threats to your organization? hi. >> so no one knows what that means. >> what's happening? >> just explain. >> i want to help secure digital identity. keep it simple. >> like what? >> like when delivering a fresh uniform or viewing your results. >> yeah. it's bad. >> or making bread soon at the high school reunion. high school reunion. >> oh, itype 2 diabetes?.

discover the ozempic® tri-zone. i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. and adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for type 1 diabetes or children. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take if you or your family had mtc, men 2, or if allergic to it. stop taking and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or any of these allergic reactions. tell your provider if you plan to have surgery or a procedure, are breastfeeding, pregnant, or plan to be. serious side effects may include inflammation of pancreas, gallbladder problems, or changes in vision. call your prescriber if you have any of these symptoms.

taking with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, constipation. some side effects lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. [tv announcer] premium meat for natural diet. most people don't realize how processed typical dog food is. at the farmer's dog we believe dogs should be able to get their daily nutrition without the excess processing. the digestibility is just better. we have the right amount of protein, the right amount of fat, the right amount of nutrients being added, but it's real food. everybody wants to take care of their dog in the best way that they can. our mission is just to help them do that. whoa.

>> let's pause for the facts. >> oh, like nearly half of all used cars, this puppy has been in an accident. but carfax. com shows how an accident impacts price so you don't have to overpay. >> unpause. whoa, whoa. >> wow. this is cool. yeah. >> wow. this is cool. yeah. >> sorry everywhere but the seat. the seat is leather. alan, we get it. you love your bike. we do, too. that's why we're america's number-one motorcycle insurer. but do you have to wedge it into everything? what? i don't do that. this reminds me of my bike. the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it, by the way? happy birthday, grandma! really? look how the brushstrokes follow the line of the gas tank. -hey! -hey! brought my plus-one. jamie? >> let's welcome our new

coworker, jeff. >> copier has a great idea. >> i wonder if it's the same idea as yesterday. >> it's a performance issue. really. >> i know people push your buttons, but you still have to deliver. >> anything can change the world >> anything can change the world of with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles to help me out. splurgy tina loves a hotel near rodeo drive. oh tina! wild tina booked a farm stay to ride this horse. glenn close?! with millions of possibilities you can book whoever you want to be. that's my line! booking.com booking.yeah ♪♪ amazing. jerry, you've got to see this. i've seen it. trust me, after 15 walks, it gets a little old.

ugh. stop waiting. start investing. e*trade ® from morgan stanley. to uphold the ban on tiktok. that's set to go into effect on sunday, as long as the company remains under chinese ownership. our panel is back with us. >> let's start with aaron gilchrist at the white house. >> and, aaron, i understand you have some news about president elect trump. >> we do. we know that this is obviously tiktok is something that president elect trump has applauded in the past. he said that that platform was a key part of him winning the youth vote in the election last november. and we understand from one of his posts on his social media platform that he spoke with chinese president xi jinping earlier today. according to this post, he said that it was a good call, and he also noted a couple of things here. he said that it's his expectation that we will solve

many problems together. and then he goes on to say we discussed balancing trade, fentanyl, tiktok and many other subjects, an indication that this is something not only that the incoming administration, this platform is something that it not only wants to see go forward, but that it's now an active part of the conversation between the incoming president and the leader of china. we know that the china is sending a delegate, if you will, to attend the inauguration on monday. it will be interesting to see if there's potentially a conversation that happens at some point while that person is here in washington. i believe the chinese vice president is the person that we anticipate will be representing china at the inauguration on monday. and obviously, the biden administration has taken the position that because this law would go into effect on sunday and the day after is a federal holiday, martin luther king jr day and inauguration day. for that reason, the biden administration believes that it would be up to the next

administration to implement this law to start the enforcement action with this law, something that the trump team, by way of the incoming national security adviser, in an interview he did yesterday, he said that they want to see tiktok stick around, and they're going to figure out a way to make that possible. >> and so, ryan, as of monday, again, trump's administration takes over, although we were just covering this week the confirmation hearings, he won't necessarily have his attorney general pick in place on day one, or at least immediately following his inauguration. so how does this transition impact enforcement of this law? >> yeah, i mean, to aaron's point, there is not the issue with monday as well is that it is a federal holiday. and i should also say just, you know, on a practical level, d.c. is on lockdown right now. i mean, i'm across from the capitol here and there. i mean, there are fences. there's everything is up. and, you know, this is, i think, more intense than it was certainly the last time around that we had a real inauguration. because,

you know, obviously with with joe biden, that was during covid. it was sort of a different sort of experience. but last time when donald trump was inaugurated, for example, it was a lot easier to get inside of just the justice department practically. and i'm getting a lot of emails now going away emails from from justice department and employees who are having to depart. and because there is that because the monday is a federal holiday, a lot of those resignations are actually going to effect today. so people are not waiting for that over the weekend. they've been told to resign. they have to resign effectively today. and in fact, merrick garland, while he will still be on and will be, you know, on call essentially until noon on monday as having his walkout ceremony from the justice department just this afternoon. so, you know, there is going to be short staff and this is going to be this is this major issue. and there's really only 36 hours on sunday until donald trump becomes president once again. so when this would go into effect that you're really only talking about a very narrow scope of time on a sunday before a federal holiday, there's just a lot of complications for why i think,

you know, joe biden has decided that they're not going to enforce that for that, for at least that 36 hours, that theoretically it could be into effect. and then, you know, the big question is what's going to happen next? obviously, i think a lot of eyes, along with eyes being on mark zuckerberg and a lot of eyes being on elon musk at the capitol and on the inauguration are also going to be on that ceo of tik tok and how that dynamic is going to play out, because obviously, donald trump has concluded that he benefited from tiktok and knows knows it's very important with with the youth. so i think that that is something that he'll be he'll be focused on and, and concentrated on, because there could be a lot of political backlash for anyone who opposes, you know, tiktok or was behind this law, even though there was this bipartisan sort of support for it. this could turn, i think, very quickly. and we see these social media pressure campaigns be very effective and can convince people, even sometimes when you know, the facts are completely against them, of, of different, you know, of different positions and can convince people very

easily. so i think that that's something that we should be watching out for all of these tech ceos, and how that interaction between donald trump is going to work with those with those ceos. >> so, barrett, pick up where ryan left off on just the enforcement piece, this government transition and just the practicality and logistics of enforcing a decision like this. >> yeah, i mean, if you think about it, the law was not directed to tiktok necessarily. the law is going to be directed to us based companies like apple and google and how they choose to go about the enforcement. i cannot imagine a world where the general counsel of apple is not, you know, scrambling right now trying to figure out how to advise their ceo, how to advise, you know, their millions of employees what to do with this app on its platform. now, i think even if we see a scenario where president elect trump comes in and says, i am directing the justice department not to enforce this law, i can't

imagine a situation where those companies are going to take a great deal of comfort with that. given that you now have a law that was passed with bipartisan support that the supreme court has, you know, said, can go ahead and go be enacted, i can't imagine that they would feel comfortable just because the president says he's not going to enforce it. again, the supreme court's opinion was very clear. it was very direct. it was not, you know, a wide, sweeping opinion. but, you know, they didn't leave a lot of wiggle room in saying there were real national security concerns that were proposed. there were issues with the data collection of millions of americans by a foreign adversary. and again, if i'm the general counsel of apple or google, it's hard to just put those aside and say, i'm going to ignore something that the supreme court has said, you know, is a potential real national security threat, just on the potential word of the president. >> so, barrett, this is a situation where the law, as it's written, would not apply to the

individual user. it's not a person who uses the app that could potentially be punished. right. do we know what the punishment is for the companies that then would be, in effect, breaking the law? should they keep tiktok on their platforms? >> yeah. so great point. so individual users don't need to be worried that they're suddenly going to be fined. that will be a big relief for my 14 year old daughter who is moaning about this as we speak. but really it's directed at the companies that would support this. so there would be fines based on the number of users. but even something that would be, let's say a $5,000 fine all of a sudden, if you have 170 million users, you're really talking about penalties that could skyrocket up into the billions of dollars. so the penalties are potentially, you know, incredibly severe for these companies. and that's why i think it's going to be very difficult for them just to ignore the law when it goes in,

even if there is going to be a lot of initial confusion, which undoubtedly there will be in the next few weeks. >> barrett berger, thank you so much for joining us. i want to bring in nbc's julie sirkin now on capitol hill. and, julie, lawmakers are starting to weigh in on this decision. >> what are you hearing? >> oh, absolutely. and leader schumer actually opened the senate floor this morning before this ruling from the supreme court came into effect, again, stressing the need for an american company to buy tiktok or at least buy certain parts of it. >> and certainly this is a conversation that is going to keep happening on capitol hill. let's remember how this bill originally passed in the spring in the senate. it was part of a larger foreign affairs package. >> so meaning many democrats voted for a tiktok ban that might have not even wanted to do that. and that is why you're hearing, particularly from democrats and markey, for example, who wants congress to pass another piece of legislation that would give the president the authority to extend beyond the 90 days that are already baked into this legislation, but extend even further and give bytedance time to find an american based

purchaser of the app. >> i want you to take a listen to a little bit of reaction that we've collected from republicans who both support the ban, who don't support the ban, and, of course, a democrat as well. >> on the next steps here. watch. senator, your reaction to the tiktok ruling. >> disappointment. i do believe that banning a social media app like tiktok is a violation of the first amendment. >> the best way for tiktok to continue to exist is for it to be sold, which the law explicitly allows for. why you ban it is it is controlled by beijing. so if it were sold or firewalled, that would be fine. >> the tiktok ban is fully and fairly constitutional. tiktok should not be banned. it should be sold. china should not own it, but it should continue to exist in this country. >> and i think that's the bottom line here. >> and what ryan was getting at. >> millions of americans use this app. there is a pressure campaign. >> in fact, when congress was even voting to take up this bill last spring, i remember all of

the creators all over these hallways trying to put pressure, trying to meet with lawmakers, to get them to not vote for that piece of legislation. >> as far as rand paul is concerned, certainly there are some republicans who feel the way he does that this does violate americans first amendment rights. of course, the supreme court poked holes in that argument with their decision today. i think what you're going to see in the coming weeks, of course, it will be important to see what the incoming administration decides to do on this, especially as ryan points out, with all of those ceos, the tech billionaires sitting in the front row for his inauguration. but ultimately, i think congress and this debate is certainly not over in terms of lawmakers pushing the administration to extend this deadline even further. i think trump seems to be coming around to that. but all in all, i think a majority of lawmakers are on the same page. they want this app to continue. they want americans to have access to it, but they don't want it to be in the hands of our foreign adversaries, who, in the words of josh hawley, say can track americans movements, can track their keystrokes, and, of course, have access to their personal information on it. >> so is it a change of heart

that they're having, or is it is it politics here? >> you know, behind their messaging right now? >> like, actually tiktok's a good thing. >> it just needs to be in different hands. >> yeah, i think it's a little bit of both. and i think it starts with the fact that when this bill originally passed in the house and senate, it had overwhelming bipartisan support. i mean, especially in the house, because they did vote on it separately, outside of the bills to ukraine, aid to the middle east as well, in the senate, that was all packaged up. so it's really hard to tell which one of those senators really supported this law or voting for this law. i think overall, though, at that point, you have to remember that both trump and biden had signaled support for legislation like this. and i think they thought that perhaps by this point, they'd be able to find a buyer, an american owned company that could take over tiktok from bytedance. of course, bytedance has been completely unwilling to do so. your great guest made great points about why would they even want to go along with something like this, given that they have significant business in other countries? i think there's a

different political calculation right now, especially after the election, when you saw even trump benefiting from that young vote. the young men especially that, of course, have been using the app as well. so it's not just democrats benefiting from tiktok and trying to get voters up to turn out to turn up at the polls and vote for their policies. it is also republicans that have seen benefits from that. the calculation, of course, has changed in the last couple of months, and i think a part of this in terms of democrats who have been appealing to the white house in the last couple of days to try and do something about this, is so that trump does not preserve the app the democrats ultimately wanted to ban. >> ana, julie sirkin, thanks for your reporting. and lisa, i know you had something you wanted to add here. well, you know, i've been thinking about what assurances various companies have that the law will or will not be enforced. there's a lot of very strenuous language in the bill itself that says the attorney general shall do something or defines what these companies are that are affected by the law as companies that are directly or indirectly controlled by a company in one of these foreign countries that

owns at least 20%. so you don't have to own the entirety of the company. bytedance would essentially have to divest itself below 20% to make this okay. on the other hand, nobody can make donald trump and his department of justice enforce this law. and when i think about other companies that might have an interest in wanting tiktok off the market, could meta sue to make the department of justice enforce the law? i don't think they would have standing to do so. and i don't think there's anybody else with what we call a private right of action to bring a lawsuit to necessitate the enforcement of this law. so companies are going to have to settle for yes, it will probably remain on the books, but they're going to have to deal with the assurance, no, we won't enforce it. that's sort of where we are right now. for example, in the biden administration with the comstock act, which affects the sending through the mail of abortion medication, that's something that hasn't been enforced since roe v wade. but in this coming administration, people fear that it could be. that's just the state of living in a world where some administrations want to enforce laws on the books and some don't. and, brian, have we heard anything at all from

apple, google or any of their social media competitors to tiktok? >> we're out for comment. from, first off, tiktok. we haven't heard back from them yet. and also to google and apple, whether or not they're going to basically say outright, i wouldn't expect them to do so, that they're going to continue providing their services. but again, there's a lot of uncertainty over how this plays out. but for the 170 million users that have tiktok right now, it's going to be a very uncertain next few months whether or not the app is going to continue working, although it sounds like at least through sunday you might be outright or a few days. >> i mean, it's right. we'll know so much more probably on sunday when this ban goes into effect. laura. final thought there's so much frustration in law enforcement and in government on the idea that people were not taking the national security concerns seriously. and then you listen to lawmakers today and other politicians, and it's as if the lawmakers have totally vanished, those national security concerns. and so how do you engage in a public information education campaign to make people realize, no, the thing on your phone is actually very serious. if now you don't enforce the law. that's a really great point. thank you so much, everybody, for being here with us. i appreciate you holding my

hand through that breaking news. and thank you at home for joining us. i'll see you back here monday, but i'll actually be in washington reporting from the field as part of msnbc's inauguration coverage. our coverage begins at 6 a.m. eastern, and then rachel maddow picks up at 10 a.m. i'll see you then. have a great weekend, jose. we'll have much more from the supreme court, as well as the confirmation hearings the confirmation hearings uwhen you really need to sleep. you reach for the really good stuff. zzzquil ultra helps you sleep better and longer when you need it most. its non-habit forming and powered by the makers of nyquil. the itch and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin, night and day. despite treatment, it's still not under control. but now, i have rinvoq. rinvoq is a once-daily pill... that reduces the itch... and helps clear the rash of eczema— ...fast. some taking rinvoq felt significant itch relief as early as 2 days. and some achieved dramatic skin clearance... as early as 2 weeks.

many saw clear or almost-clear skin. rinvoq can lower ability to fight infections. before treatment, test for tb and do bloodwork. serious infections, blood clots, some fatal... cancers, including lymphoma and skin; serious allergic reactions; gi tears; death; heart attack; and stroke occurred. cv event risk increases in age 50 plus with a heart disease risk factor. tell your doctor if you've had these events, infection, hep b or c, smoked, are pregnant or planning. don't take if allergic or have an infection. ♪♪ disrupt the itch & rash of eczema. can help you save. talk to your dermatologist about rinvoqhoabbvie the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention.

my customers ask how to get a better price on their meds, i tell them about single care. it's a free app accepted at pharmacies nationwide. >> before i pick up my prescription, i always check the single care price. >> it's quick, easy, and totally free to use. >> single care can literally beat my insurance copay. >> you just search for your prescription and show your single care coupon at the pharmacy. pharmacy. >> s power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. but at least you can go to safelite. >> com and schedule a fix

pete g. writes, "my tween wants a new phone. how do i not break the bank?" we got you, pete. xfinity mobile was designed to save you money and gives you access to wifi speeds up to a gig.