On January 17, 2025, a slew of prominent US media outlets, including AP and CNN, reported that President Biden might not enforce the impending TikTok ban scheduled for January 19, leaving the matter to the incoming president. Given the next president's seemingly moderate stance on TikTok, repeatedly affirming that "it should be allowed to continue to exist," domestic media outlets generally interpreted this news as a sign that "TikTok has turned the corner." However, the question remains: Has there truly been a turning point?

Echoing the query posed by US congressmen to Shouzi Zhou during a hearing: Yes or No? At that time, Zhou did not provide a definitive answer. And the current response is: Yes, and No. TikTok may indeed gain a brief reprieve, but based on the current scenario, the ultimate outcome will likely remain unchanged. The US condition remains "sale," which TikTok is highly unlikely to accept.

First, let's authenticate the US media reports. To date, the White House has not issued any official statement regarding the January 19 ban, nor has the issue been addressed at White House press conferences. However, given the number of reputable US media outlets reporting this claim, there must be a credible source. Logically, this source could be an active briefing from the White House or an insider tip from the media. Even if the information is not entirely reliable, it holds a certain degree of authenticity, hovering around 50-50. Whether the ban will be enforced ultimately depends on Biden, who has yet to express his stance.

The question arises: Assuming TikTok secures a "breathing space" and avoids the January 19 ban, what challenges lie ahead? It still faces the prospect of a "ban if not sold," albeit with slightly more preparation time. Let's consider recent statements from US politicians:

Current White House officials have stated through various media outlets, such as ABC, that "our position is firm; TikTok should continue to operate under American ownership." On January 16, US Senator Markey from Massachusetts proposed a motion to delay the TikTok ban by 270 days (which was swiftly rejected), citing the need to "give it more time to explore sale options" – indicating that even advocates of leniency favor a sale. The incoming president has merely expressed the idea that "TikTok should continue to operate" without specifying how to implement it. However, some members of his team (such as the incoming National Security Adviser) have clearly stated that TikTok's continued operation is contingent on its sale to an American consortium.

In summary, most US politicians who have voiced their opinions, regardless of their affiliation with the current or incoming White House, or their role in the legislative or executive branch, believe that transferring TikTok to an American company for continued operation is the optimal solution, while direct closure is the worst-case scenario. Since TikTok currently refuses to sell, some US politicians have proposed a grace period, but the purpose remains to facilitate a sale. Believing that the grace period will result in TikTok continuing to operate indefinitely is naïve.

The biggest uncertainty now lies with the incoming president himself, who has yet to outline a specific plan to resolve the TikTok issue. Even if he wishes to be lenient and assist TikTok, does he possess the authority to do so? Legally, he does not. TikTok's fate of "ban if not sold" is dictated by congressional legislation, which the president cannot overturn once enacted and in effect. Some suggest that the new president could sign an executive order to suspend or halt law enforcement – a misconception of the American system. Executive orders complement, refine, or explain laws and have lower efficacy than laws. They cannot overturn laws, but laws can invalidate executive orders that contradict them.

It is true that the law contains a provision allowing a 90-day grace period for TikTok. However, this is contingent on TikTok confirming that it has initiated sale negotiations, with the ultimate outcome still being a sale. Currently, TikTok does not wish to sell and cannot sell, so even if it obtains a 90-day grace period, what difference would it make? Merely postponing the January 19 deadline to April 20?

Theoretically, if the new president insists on aiding TikTok and refuses to enforce the law, it is possible. However, it would consume significant political capital and entail substantial risks. Despite the new president's popularity, he cannot control everything, and political capital remains valuable. Why waste it on TikTok? Unless he intends to use it to secure some form of deal, which remains unpredictable.

Over the past month, TikTok and ByteDance officials have repeatedly stated publicly that they have "no plans to sell." Previously, media reports claimed that a consortium led by Musk intended to acquire TikTok, even specifying the price and terms. However, ByteDance responded that it was "pure fiction." Whether ongoing negotiations exist remains unclear, but the likelihood of a sale is slim, and the current public opinion environment does not support a sale.

Returning to the article's opening question: Has TikTok truly turned the corner? If it considers selling, the answer is Yes, as the law already contains grace clauses, and most US politicians hope for continued operation post-sale. If it does not wish to sell, the answer is No, as no matter the grace period's duration, it will not alter the outcome; it will merely delay the shutdown date.

There is also the possibility of last-minute intervention by the US Supreme Court. The court debate on the TikTok case has concluded, but a verdict has yet to be announced. Should the Supreme Court rule favorably for TikTok, the relevant laws may be invalidated, resolving all issues. However, based on US media observations, the justices' attitudes during the trial were relatively indifferent, and the likelihood of a favorable ruling is low – but not zero.

If there is indeed something to anticipate as a turning point, it would be a judicial intervention. Neither the White House nor Congress can offer false, mirage-like hope; they do not count.