Divest-or-Ban Law

Extracted Attributes

• Target (Anti-BDS)

  People and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities

• Type of Legislation

  Legislation requiring divestiture or ban of entities

• Primary Applications

  Anti-BDS laws; Foreign adversary controlled applications (e.g., TikTok)

• Specific Legislation (TikTok)

  Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)

• Enforcement Mechanism (TikTok)

  Penalties targeting companies providing services (e.g., app stores, internet hosting providers)

• Opponents' Argument (Anti-BDS)

  Infringes on free speech rights, conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, 'lawfare'

• Proponents' Argument (Anti-BDS)

  BDS is a form of antisemitism, legislates against hate speech

• Target (Foreign Adversary Apps)

  Applications controlled by foreign adversaries (e.g., People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, Russian Federation, Islamic Republic of Iran)

• Geographical Prevalence (Anti-BDS)

  United States, Western world

• Opponents' Argument (Foreign Adversary Apps)

  Infringes on free speech rights

• Proponents' Argument (Foreign Adversary Apps)

  National security issue, preventing foreign influence and data access by foreign adversaries

Timeline

• The Arab League boycott of Israel was first imposed, a historical precedent for organized boycotts against Israel. (Source: Wikipedia)

  1945-XX-XX

• The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), a 'Divest-or-Ban Law' targeting foreign adversary controlled applications like TikTok, was signed into law. (Source: Web Search)

  2024-04-24

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the TikTok divest-or-ban requirement. (Source: Web Search)

  2024-12-06

• The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (TikTok Sale-or-Ban Law). (Source: Web Search)

  2025-01-17

• The Act effectively bans TikTok in the U.S. unless its U.S. operations are divested from ByteDance. (Source: Web Search)

  2025-01-19

Anti-BDS laws

With regard to the Arab–Israeli conflict, many supporters of the State of Israel have often advocated or implemented anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) laws, which effectively seek to retaliate against people and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities. Most organized boycotts of Israel have been led by Palestinians and other Arabs with support from much of the Muslim world. Since the Second Intifada in particular, these efforts have primarily been coordinated at an international level by the Palestinian-led BDS movement, which seeks to mount as much economic pressure on Israel as possible until the Israeli government allows an independent Palestinian state to be established. Anti-BDS laws are designed to make it difficult for anti-Israel people and organizations to participate in boycotts; anti-BDS legal resolutions are symbolic and non-binding parliamentary condemnations, either of boycotts of Israel or of the BDS movement itself. Generally, such condemnations accuse BDS of closeted antisemitism, charging it with pushing a double standard and lobbying for the de-legitimization of Israeli sovereignty, and are often followed by laws targeting boycotts of Israel. Proponents of anti-BDS laws claim that BDS is a form of antisemitism, and so such laws legislate against hate speech. Opponents claim that Israel's supporters are engaging in lawfare by lobbying for anti-BDS laws that infringe upon the right to free speech, and conflating anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The specific provisions of anti-BDS laws vary widely. Legislation, to any degree, against boycotts of Israel is prevalent in much of the Western world, and especially in the United States, which has been Israel's closest ally on the international stage since the 1960s. Conversely, legislation promoting or enforcing boycotts of Israel is prevalent in much of the Muslim world, with the most prominent example being that of the Arab League boycott of Israel, which was first imposed in 1945 as part of an effort to weaken the Yishuv by targeting the Jewish economy in the British Mandate for Palestine.

Web Search Results

• The D.C. Circuit Court's TikTok Ban Decision, Explained - Lawfare

  The case before the D.C. Circuit concerned the constitutionality of the divest-or-ban requirement in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The act requires TikTok parent company ByteDance to either fully divest ownership of TikTok or face a ban within the United States. Enforcement of the act is targeted specifically at companies that provide critical support to the application, such as app stores or cloud infrastructure providers that enable distribution [...] On Dec. 6, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the TikTok divest-or-ban requirement enacted in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The decision affirmed that the act does not violate the First Amendment and is sufficiently narrow to fulfill the government’s interest in preventing foreign influence on TikTok. In its decision, the court acknowledged that the ruling would create a potential [...] Skip to Main Content Courts & Litigation Cybersecurity & Tech # The D.C. Circuit Court's TikTok Ban Decision, Explained The court ruled the divest-or-ban requirement does not violate the First Amendment. ## Niharika Vattikonda ## Benjamin Kelley --- Meet The Authors Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With Subscribe to Lawfare

• National Security Update: Court Upholds Divest-or-Ban Law ...

  The law specifically prohibits the distribution or operation of “foreign adversary controlled applications” and explicitly bans TikTok, its subsidiaries or successors from operating under such control. It also extends to any company deemed by the President to pose a significant threat to U.S. national security. [...] # Debevoise and Plimpton logo Debevoise and Plimpton logo # National Security Update: Court Upholds Divest-or-Ban Law Impacting TikTok U.S. Operations Tweet Share on LinkedIn Send email On December 6, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released its opinion in TikTok, Inc. et al. v. Garland, upholding a law requiring ByteDance, Ltd. to divest its ownership of TikTok or face a ban in the United States. [...] The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (“PAFACA”), enacted in April 2024 with bipartisan support, seeks to prevent foreign adversaries from manipulating content or accessing sensitive data. The Act identifies the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”), the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran as foreign adversaries of the United States.

• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Sale-or-Ban Law | Insights

  . The act, which was signed into law on April 24, 2024, gave ByteDance Ltd., the TikTok app's Chinese parent company, nine months to divest the popular U.S. company or be banned from operating in the U.S. ByteDance mounted a First Amendment challenge to the Act but was unsuccessful at the high court. Starting on Jan. 19, 2025, one day before the inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump, the Act will effectively ban TikTok unless its U.S. operations are divested from ByteDance. [...] The Act provides an exception for foreign adversary-controlled applications if they undergo a qualified divestiture. A qualified divestiture requires a presidential determination that the application is no longer under the control of a foreign adversary. Furthermore, the divestiture must ensure that no operational relationships remain between the U.S. operations of the application and any former entities affiliated with a foreign adversary. [...] Should ByteDance refuse to divest its holdings in TikTok, the app would face a nationwide ban. The ban would not result in the immediate removal of the app from users' devices. Instead, the ban would be enforced through penalties targeting companies that provide services to banned entities, such as internet hosting providers and app store operators such as Apple and Google. These companies would be prohibited from distributing or updating TikTok on their platforms, leading to a gradual

• Why is TikTok banned? What's behind the law that shuttered the app

  In 2022, TikTok began an initiative known as "Project Texas" to safeguard American users' data on servers in the U.S. and ease lawmakers' fears. The Justice Department said the plan was insufficient because it still allowed some U.S. data to flow to China. Though the divest-or-ban law passed with bipartisan support, some lawmakers have been critical of the measure, agreeing with TikTok that it infringes on Americans' free speech rights. [...] As the House took up the divest-or-ban law in April 2024, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, compared it to a "spy balloon in Americans' phones." Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said that lawmakers learned in classified briefings "how rivers of data are being collected and shared in ways that are not well-aligned with American security interests."

• TikTok Sale-or-Ban Law Upheld by Supreme Court: A Turning Point ...

  OnJanuary 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the _Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act_ also known as the TikTok Sale-or-Ban Law. This law grants the federal government the authority to shut down TikTok unless ByteDance, its China-based parent company, completes a qualified divestiture—essentially severing all control over TikTok’s U.S. operations and having the application cut ties with any entities designated as foreign adversaries. The ban [...] Just a year after its launch, the U.S. government initiated a national security review of TikTok, sparking investigations and partial bans. The following year, former President Trump issued executive orders for ByteDance to divest its holdings in TikTok. TikTok challenged the order’s constitutionality, but the D.C. Circuit paused the case in 2021 to allow for negotiations that ultimately fell through. In 2022, leaks revealed that ByteDance employees had accessed private TikTok user data,