Per Curiam
erations of the [application] and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.” §2(g)(6)(B). The Act permits the President to grant a one-time extension of no more than 90 days with respect to the prohibitions’ 270-day effective date if the President makes certain certifications to Congress regarding progress toward a qualified divestiture. §2(a)(3).
C
ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc.—along with two sets of TikTok users and creators (creator petitioners)—filed petitions for review in the D. C. Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the Act. As relevant here, the petitioners argued that the Act’s prohibitions, TikTok-specific foreign adversary controlled application designation, and divestiture requirement violate the First Amendment.
The D. C. Circuit consolidated and denied the petitions, holding that the Act does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. 122 F. 4th 930, 940, 948–965 (CADC 2024). After first concluding that the Act was subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment, the court assumed without deciding that strict, rather than intermediate, scrutiny applied. Id., at 948–952. The court held that the Act satisfied that standard, finding that the Government’s national security justifications—countering China’s data collection and covert content manipulation efforts—were compelling, and that the Act was narrowly tailored to further those interests. Id., at 952–965.
Chief Judge Srinivasan concurred in part and in the judgment. Id., at 970. In his view, the Act was subject to intermediate scrutiny, id., at 974–979, and was constitutional under that standard, id., at 979–983.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. 604
