The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok just two days before the bipartisan divestiture law is slated to take effect.

"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," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. 

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

There were no noted dissents.

At issue was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress last April with wide bipartisan support. The law gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

In passing the law, Congress cited concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. After a lower court upheld the ban, the Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok's emergency request to either block or pause implementation of the law under a fast-track timeline just nine days before the ban was slated to go into effect.

President-elect Donald Trump did not immediately respond to the Supreme Court decision, which comes just days before his inauguration. As president, Trump could move to delay the law, either by not enforcing it vigorously— which would allow TikTok more time to find a buyer, or continue operating as-is—or take other actions that would uphold the status quo.

Trump said he spoke by phone Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping hours before the Supreme Court decision was published. Trump described the conversation between the two as being "a very good one" both for China and the U.S. He noted that the two had discussed shared interests, including TikTok. 

Trump has also invited TikTok CEO Shou Chew to attend his inauguration. Chew said he plans to attend.

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

During oral arguments, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated the argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

TikTok’s lawyers, meanwhile, sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company has argued applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, argued that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and reiterated TikTok's position that the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution. 

Francisco also argued TikTok cannot divest from its Chinese parent company, citing portions of its source code and intellectual property that are housed in China.  

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. 

More specifically, laws that deal with First Amendment protections must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— outlining a way that the Supreme Court could have theoretically considered the case under strict scrutiny and still opted to uphold the law.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, several justices appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

POTENTIAL TIKTOK BAN: WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA APPS ARE POPPING UP IN APP STORES?

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year under the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But it also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and later told reporters that his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act, but cited his request for the court to pause the ban from taking effect until Trump's inauguration. 

Fox News' Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Allstate insurance company for allegedly illegally collecting, using and selling the driving behavior data of over 45 million Americans.

Paxton filed the suit in the District Court for Montgomery County, Texas, on Monday morning. In the suit, he accuses Allstate, and its subsidiary data analytics company "Arity," of secretly using driving data from over 45 million Americans’ mobile devices, in-car devices and vehicles to build the "world’s largest driving behavior database," consisting of "trillions of miles" worth of data.

"Our investigation revealed that Allstate and Arity paid millions of dollars to install Allstate’s tracking software," Paxton said in a Monday statement. "The personal data of millions of Americans was sold to insurance companies without their knowledge or consent in violation of the law. Texans deserve better and we will hold all these companies accountable."

Allstate is one of the largest auto, home and life insurance companies in the U.S. It is headquartered in Glenview, Illinois.

COURT ORDERS BIDEN ADMIN TO STOP SELLING BORDER WALL MATERIALS, WAS 'ILLEGALLY SUBVERTING' LAWS: TEXAS AG

The suit said that in 2015, Allstate and Arity developed and integrated software into several third-party apps so that when a consumer downloaded these apps onto their phone, they unwittingly downloaded the tracking software. Once Allstate’s software was downloaded onto a customer’s device, they could monitor the consumer’s location and movement in real time.

According to the suit, the company used the driving data to justify raising customers’ insurance rates and further profited by selling the data to third parties, including other insurance companies.

"Defendants [Allstate and Arity] never informed consumers about their extensive data collection, nor did Defendants obtain consumers’ consent to engage in such data collection," the suit said. "Finally, Defendants never informed consumers about the myriad of ways Defendants would analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data."

TEXAS AG SUES NCAA OVER TRANS INCLUSION IN WOMEN'S SPORTS

Because tens of millions of Americans, including millions of Texans, were never informed about their driving data being gathered, Paxton argues that Allstate’s data-gathering scheme violates the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, the Data Broker Law, and the Texas Insurance Code’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the insurance business.

He is asking the court to permanently block Allstate from continuing to gather and use customers’ data and to impose thousands of dollars in civil penalties per customer.

According to Paxton, this suit is the first enforcement action ever filed by a state attorney general to enforce a comprehensive data privacy law. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Allstate but did not immediately receive a response.

The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court.

At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President Biden that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

On Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."

"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter — though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force.

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support — as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But the argument also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month, urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president.

If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is "trying to get Americans to argue with each other," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "I’d say they are winning."

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, on Friday sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it — meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law — and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday noted that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny — a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments on Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.

"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.

Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.

The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.

The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19. 

It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.

The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.

Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.

TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations 

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. 

Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.

"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court. 

National security concerns 

Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring. 

The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content. 

Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail. 

Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned. 

That evidence has not been released to the public. 

Political pressures 

The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act. 

Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.

"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.

The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. 

In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values." 

They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."

The decision by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to end Facebook's work with third-party fact-checkers and ease some of its content restrictions is a potentially "transformative" moment for the platform, experts said, but one that is unlikely to shield the company from liability in ongoing court proceedings.

The updates were announced by Zuckerberg, who said in a video that the previous content restrictions used on Facebook and Instagram — which were put into place after the 2016 elections — had "gone too far" and allowed for too much political bias from outside fact-checkers.

Meta will now replace that system with a "Community Notes"-style program, similar to the approach taken by social media platform X, he said. X is owned by Elon Musk, the co-director of the planned Department of Government Efficiency.

"We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship," Zuckerberg said. "The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms."

META ENDS FACT-CHECKING PROGRAM AS ZUCKERBERG VOWS TO RESTORE FREE EXPRESSION ON FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM

The news was praised by President-elect Donald Trump, who told Fox News Digital that he thought Meta's presentation "was excellent."  "They have come a long way," Trump said.

Still, it is unlikely to ease the legal liability for Meta, which in recent months has been hit with the possibility of a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit stemming from a privacy scandal involving the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. 

The Supreme Court in November rejected Meta's effort to block the lawsuit, leaving in place an appellate court ruling that allowed the class action suit to move forward. 

Meta has also been the target of multiple Republican-led investigations in Congress. Republicans on the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government probed Meta's activity and communication with the federal government and the Biden administration last year as part of a broader investigation into alleged censorship. 

The platform also came under scrutiny by the House Oversight Committee in August, as part of an investigation into claims that the platform suppressed information about the July 13 assassination attempt of Trump. 

MORE THAN 100 FORMER JUSTICE DEPT OFFICIALS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM PAM BONDI AS AG

Combined, these factors make it unlikely that Meta will see its legal problems go away anytime soon, law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital in an interview.

"Facebook is now looking at a tough patch ahead," he said. "Not only do the Republicans carry both houses of Congress as well as the White House, but there is ongoing litigation in the social media case in Texas."

Additionally, the Supreme Court's conservative majority is also unlikely to be sympathetic to the views of Meta in any case centered on First Amendment protections and rights to free speech.

The House investigations and litigation have both forced more of Meta's actions into public view— something Turley said expects to come under further scrutiny in the discovery process in Missouri v. Biden, a case that centers on allegations of political censorship.

"That discovery is still revealing new details," Turley said. "So Meta understood that in the coming months, more details would be forthcoming on its censorship program."

Still, he said, this "could be a transformative moment," Turley said. 

"And an alliance of Zuckerberg with [Elon] Musk could turn the tide in this fight over free speech," Turley said. "And as one of Zuckerberg's most vocal critics  I welcome him to this fight."

President-elect Donald Trump claimed this week that he has not changed his mind about the controversial H-1B visa program and that the U.S. needs "smart people" coming into the country, amid a furious intra-Republican debate on the visa program.

"I didn't change my mind. I've always felt we have to have the most competent people in our country, and we need competent people," Trump said at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday evening. "We need smart people coming into our country. We need a lot of people coming in. We're going to have jobs like we've never had before."

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. companies to hire foreign workers for specialty occupations and is overwhelmingly used by the tech industry. However, it has long been controversial for some conservatives, who say it is abused by tech companies to bring in cheap, predominantly Indian, labor to replace American workers.

ERIC SCHMITT BLASTS ‘ABUSE’ OF H-1B VISA PROGRAM, SAYS AMERICANS ‘SHOULDN’T TRAIN THEIR FOREIGN REPLACEMENTS'

The program hit the headlines last week when Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have been tapped by Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, argued for the importance of foreign workers for tech companies.

"The reason I’m in America along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that made America strong is because of H1B," Musk said on X.

That re-opened a rift between those on the right over the program and whether it is being used to attract the best talent or being used by companies to bring in cheaper labor, who are tied to their job by the visa.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said on Fox News Sunday that H1-B visas are being "abused."

"I think the abuses of the H-1B program have been evident, where you have sort of the sons and daughters of those factory workers who lost their jobs, got white collar jobs as accountants, and they're, you know, training their replacements, the foreign workers who are undercutting their wages," he said.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MOVES TO CHANGE H-1B GUEST WORKER PROGRAM TO PRIORITIZE HIGHER-WAGE APPLICANTS

Trump has previously shown skepticism about the H-1B visa program. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he promised to tackle the abuse of the program and pointed to allegations of companies forcing Americans to train their cheaper replacements.

"The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse and ending outrageous practices such as those that occurred at Disney in Florida when Americans were forced to train their foreign replacements," he said in 2016.

"I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions," he said.

He also said that his companies use the H-1B program "and I shouldn’t be allowed to use it."

His administration immediately began looking into reforms to the H-1B visa program, and, in 2020, it proposed a sweeping rule that would prioritize the selection of higher wage applicants for the approximately 85,000 visas allocated annually.

That rule would have required that registrations at the highest of four wage levels get to apply for the visa allocation first. Once those at the highest level have applied, then the process would turn to level III, and so on until the spaces are filled.

"Put simply, because demand for H-1B visas has exceeded the annual supply for more than a decade, DHS prefers that cap-subject H-1B visas go to beneficiaries earning the highest wages relative to their [Standard Occupational Classification] codes and area(s) of intended employment," the rule says.

TRUMP SAYS HE IS A ‘BELIEVER’ IN H-1B VISAS FOR SKILLED WORKERS AS RIGHT SPARS ON IMMIGRATION: REPORT 

The rule was not put into effect due to the Biden administration, which abandoned it and has since proposed a rule of its own. However, it was greeted favorably by immigration hawks. Other rules put forward during the Trump administration proposed narrowing the definition of "specialty occupation" and making changes to the way the "prevailing wage" is set in order to make sure U.S. wages are not undercut.

The incoming Trump administration has not said specifically what it will do in terms of H-1B and whether it will resurrect its first-term efforts. However, Musk proposed "raising the minimum salary significantly and adding a yearly cost for maintaining the H1B, making it materially more expensive to hire from overseas than domestically. "

"I’ve been very clear that the program is broken and needs major reform," he said on Saturday.

At the same time, Trump told the New York Post that the program is "great."

"I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them," Trump said.

"I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FIRST ON FOX: A pro-tech advocacy group has released a new report warning of the growing threat posed by China’s artificial intelligence technology and its open-source approach that could threaten the national and economic security of the United States.

The report, published by American Edge Project, states that "China is rapidly advancing its own open-source ecosystem as an alternative to American technology and using it as a Trojan horse to implant its CCP values into global infrastructure."

"Their progress is both significant and concerning: Chinese-developed open-source AI tools are already outperforming Western models on key benchmarks, while operating at dramatically lower costs, accelerating global adoption. Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which spans more than 155 countries on four continents, and its Digital Silk Road (DSR), China is exporting its technology worldwide, fostering increased global dependence, undermining democratic norms, and threatening U.S. leadership and global security."

The report outlines how Chinese AI models censor historical events that could paint China in a bad light, deny or minimize human rights abuses, and filter criticism of Chinese political leaders.

CATE BLANCHETT WORRIES AI COULD 'TOTALLY REPLACE ANYONE'

"China is executing an ambitious $1.4 trillion plan to dominate global technology by 2030, with open-source systems as the cornerstone of its AI strategy," the report states. "While many Western companies focus on paid, proprietary AI models, China is aggressively promoting free and low-cost alternatives to drive rapid global adoption."

The report continues, "By making much of its AI technology freely accessible, Beijing aims to ensure its systems and standards become embedded in the world’s financial, manufacturing and communications backbone. Through coordinated action between government and industry, China is working to reshape the global technology landscape while programming CCP values and control mechanisms into critical systems worldwide."

CHINA’S SCI-FI SPHERICAL DEATH STAR-LIKE ROBOT COP USES AI, FACIAL RECOGNITION TO TRACK CRIMINALS

The report explains that China is "racing" to deploy AI while the United States is bogged down on prioritizing AI regulation.

"While American and European governments focus on regulating AI, China is aggressively pushing its AI systems into global markets," the report states, adding that, "This playbook mirrors China’s successful strategy with 5G technology, where Huawei gained dominant market share through aggressive pricing and rapid deployment before Western nations could respond effectively. Now in AI, one Chinese firm alone, Alibaba Cloud, has released over 100 open-source models in 29 different languages, flooding global markets while Western companies must navigate increasingly complex regulatory requirements."

The report lays out the differences between China and U.S. AI model responses and provides policy recommendations to "preserve U.S. AI leadership," which includes seizing the "historic opportunity to secure lasting American AI leadership" and avoiding "unilateral restrictions on exporting and access to U.S. AI systems.

"If America loses the global race to dominate both open-source and closed-source AI technology, authoritarian Chinese systems will write the future, and Washington policymakers can't let that happen," Doug Kelly, CEO of the American Edge Project, told Fox News Digital. 

The report concludes that "the implications of Chinese leadership in global AI development are profound."

"A world of unchecked, Beijing-built AI ecosystems would be a major blow to the U.S. and to humanity writ large," the Center for New American Security says in the report. "If Chinese AI goes global, so too will brazen non-compliance with international agreements on the technology."