The TikTok Ban: A Lesson in Presidential Tandem, Political Optics, and the Illusion of Division
How Two Presidents from Opposite Ends of the Spectrum Played Their Roles in a Historic Ban While Americans Remained Divided—and Livelihoods Were Destroyed
The TikTok Ban in Context
In April 2024, President Joe Biden signed H.R.7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest its U.S. operations by January 2025 or face a ban. Enforcement of this law, now falling to President Donald Trump’s administration, has already begun impacting millions of Americans.
While officials frame the ban as a necessary measure to protect national security, it reveals something deeper: the way governance transcends party lines to preserve systemic power, even as the public is kept divided along partisan (political party-based) lines. Trump and Biden, despite their opposing political brands (remember the USA is a business), have effectively played complementary roles in advancing this policy. The spectacle of division has obscured the bipartisan (supported by both major political parties) collaboration driving this decision—and its devastating consequences for the public.
This article examines the TikTok ban as a case study in how power operates above and beyond partisan divides, explores the broader consequences of the ban, and calls for collective action to challenge the illusion of division.
Trump and Biden: Playing Their Roles
Trump’s Initiation:
In 2020, Trump framed TikTok as a national security threat, introducing executive orders to ban the app. While these orders were legally challenged and never enforced, they set the stage for future action.Biden’s Execution:
Biden codified Trump’s rhetoric into law, signing the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in April 2024. By formalizing the ban, Biden advanced bipartisan concerns about cybersecurity while strategically deferring enforcement to Trump’s incoming administration.Trump’s Return:
Now tasked with enforcing the ban, Trump has the opportunity to shape the narrative. Whether he enforces the ban or reverses it, he can position himself as either the protector of free speech or the defender of national security, securing political capital either way.
Trump’s Role: Planting the Seed
In 2020, Donald Trump made headlines with his threats to ban TikTok, claiming the app posed a national security threat due to its potential to share American user data with the Chinese government. His bold rhetoric resonated with his base, many of whom viewed China as an economic and geopolitical adversary. However, while Trump issued executive orders targeting TikTok, his administration failed to enforce them.
For Trump, the TikTok ban was as much about optics as it was about policy. By targeting a popular platform, he positioned himself as a defender of national security while simultaneously challenging Big Tech, a frequent target of his administration. But his failure to act left the issue unresolved, passing the baton to the next administration.
Biden’s Role: Sealing the Deal
When Biden took office, many assumed he would take a softer stance on TikTok, given his administration’s focus on engaging younger voters and addressing domestic unity. Instead, Biden surprised many by advancing the ban. By signing the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, Biden formalized Trump’s rhetoric into law, giving ByteDance a deadline to divest or face an outright ban.
Biden’s decision reflects a pattern often seen in governance: the continuation of policies initiated by predecessors, regardless of party affiliation. While Biden’s reasoning was couched in concerns about cybersecurity and U.S.-China relations, the timing of the policy also aligned with growing bipartisan support for tech regulation.
However, Biden’s choice to defer enforcement of the ban to the incoming Trump administration reveals another layer of strategy. By doing so, he avoided direct confrontation with TikTok’s massive user base while ensuring that the responsibility—and potential backlash—would fall on his successor.
Trump’s Return: Political Optics and Enforcement
Now, in January 2025, Trump is once again at the center of the TikTok debate. The responsibility for enforcing the ban rests squarely with his administration, giving him an opportunity to either follow through or reverse course.
If Trump decides not to enforce the ban, he can position himself as a champion of free speech and consumer choice, appealing to TikTok’s users and framing himself as a “savior” of the platform. If he enforces the ban, he can claim credit for protecting national security and fulfilling a promise from his first term. Either way, Trump stands to gain politically, while Biden appears neutral—neither the villain nor the hero.
This sequence of events highlights the strategic handoff between administrations and the careful crafting of political optics. But what about the public? While leaders from both parties quietly align on policy, the people remain divided, arguing over party lines rather than recognizing the bipartisan nature of governance.
Historical Patterns: The Illusion of Division
While Trump and Biden play their roles in the TikTok ban, Americans are locked in bitter partisan debates. Supporters of Trump criticize Biden for infringing on freedom of expression, while Biden’s base defends the ban as necessary for national security. Both groups fail to see the bigger picture: the policy itself has transcended party lines, reflecting a broader continuity of governance that operates independently of the political spectacle.
This is not an isolated incident. Time and again, Americans are distracted by the theater of partisanship while substantive policies remain consistent across administrations. History reveals how power often operates in cycles, where leaders, regardless of party, carry forward decisions that align with systemic priorities. Consider the following examples:
The War on Terror: Clinton to Bush
Bill Clinton’s administration laid the groundwork for the “War on Terror” through counterterrorism measures that expanded intelligence-gathering capabilities. These measures set the stage for George W. Bush’s response to 9/11, including the Patriot Act and the invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton’s focus on intelligence foreshadowed the sweeping surveillance programs and military interventions that became central to Bush’s agenda.
Healthcare Reform: Bush to Obama
George W. Bush’s administration initiated significant healthcare reforms, such as the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which expanded access to prescription drugs for seniors. Barack Obama built upon these efforts to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), framing it as a transformative victory for healthcare access. Yet, the ACA’s foundation was deeply rooted in the bipartisan policies established during Bush’s presidency.
Mass Incarceration: Clinton to Bush to Obama
Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill, passed with bipartisan support, dramatically expanded the prison system, disproportionately harming Black and Brown communities. George W. Bush’s administration upheld these policies, continuing to emphasize punitive measures over rehabilitation. Barack Obama, despite promises of reform, made only incremental changes to the system, leaving the structures of mass incarceration largely intact.
Surveillance and the Patriot Act: Bush to Obama
After 9/11, George W. Bush introduced the Patriot Act, granting sweeping surveillance powers to government agencies. Barack Obama’s administration, despite campaigning on promises to curtail these powers, expanded programs like the NSA’s data collection. This bipartisan commitment to surveillance highlights how national security concerns often justify erosions of civil liberties, regardless of which party is in power.
Climate Policy and Fossil Fuels: Bush to Obama to Biden
George W. Bush’s administration prioritized oil and gas interests, setting the stage for environmental policy that often balanced renewable energy initiatives with fossil fuel expansion. Barack Obama championed renewable energy but simultaneously approved projects like offshore drilling and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Joe Biden, despite bold climate promises, has continued this trend, approving new drilling projects while advocating for green energy transitions. The torch of fossil fuel dependency remains unbroken.
Economic Policy: The Bailouts—Bush to Obama
During the 2008 financial crisis, George W. Bush’s administration initiated massive bailouts for Wall Street, arguing that they were necessary to stabilize the economy. Barack Obama expanded these efforts, providing further support to big banks while neglecting to address systemic inequalities. Both administrations prioritized corporate recovery over direct relief for working-class Americans, leaving millions to bear the brunt of the recession.
Cold War Era: Eisenhower to Kennedy
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration planned the Bay of Pigs invasion, a covert operation aimed at overthrowing Fidel Castro in Cuba. When John F. Kennedy inherited the plan, he chose to proceed despite his reservations, resulting in a disastrous failure that tarnished his presidency. This transition illustrates how decisions initiated under one administration often persist, even when leadership changes.
These patterns reveal a sobering truth: while we argue over which party is “better” for the country, the machinery of governance grinds on, often serving the same interests regardless of who is in power.