TikTok is facing a fresh storm over what users say they are not allowed to say. As clips and screenshots alleging that the word “Epstein” is blocked ricochet across social media, California Governor Gavin Newsom is launching a formal probe into whether the Trump-aligned version of the app is quietly suppressing content critical of the president. The clash is turning a technical moderation glitch, or what TikTok insists is one, into a test of how much political control is now baked into one of the country’s most influential platforms.
At stake is more than a single banned word. The fight over “Epstein” and anti-Trump videos is colliding with broader fears that the newly restructured, Trump-approved TikTok could become a tool of state-aligned messaging, especially in a high-stakes election year. I see the California investigation as an early attempt to draw legal lines around that power before they harden into precedent.
How a single word ignited a censorship firestorm
The controversy began with users reporting that they could not type “Epstein” in TikTok direct messages, even when they were not linking the name to any specific allegation or conspiracy theory. Screenshots showed the term apparently blocked or auto-deleted, prompting accusations that the platform was trying to scrub references to Jeffrey Epstein from private chats. Officials at TikTok have acknowledged that they are looking into why many users have been unable to send the word, with the issue surfacing alongside a wave of complaints about broader content limits and the hashtag #TikTokCensorship trending on X, according to Officials. The fact that the word in question is tied to one of the most notorious sex-trafficking cases in recent memory only intensified suspicion that something more than a bug was at work.
TikTok has pushed back on that narrative, saying it is not intentionally blocking “Epstein” and that any disruption is unintended. Company representatives have said they are investigating why some users cannot write the word in messages, while insisting that the platform is investigating why the term appears to be restricted in some private chats. In a separate statement, the company has said it is not blocking “Epstein” in messages after users accused the platform of censorship, a position reiterated in coverage that noted TikTok’s denial that it is Not Blocking the word. That gap between user experience and corporate explanation is exactly where trust in moderation systems tends to fray.
From “Epstein” to anti-Trump content
The uproar over “Epstein” did not emerge in isolation. At the same time users were sharing blocked-message screenshots, others were reporting that videos critical of President Donald Trump and his immigration crackdown were disappearing or failing to gain traction. TikTok has said it is investigating why users of the platform have experienced problems posting anti-Trump clips, with the company acknowledging that the controversy follows a major restructuring of its United States operations and promising a review of how those changes may have affected moderation, according to TikTok says. The overlap between a politically sensitive keyword and politically sensitive videos has fueled a broader narrative that the app is tilting its rules in favor of the White House.
That suspicion is sharpened by the recent sale of TikTok’s United States business to a group of investors aligned with President Trump, a deal that critics warned could turn the app into a vehicle for a more Trumpian approach to content. Reporting on the new arrangement has highlighted concerns that the investors could manipulate the algorithm to favor pro-Trump narratives or suppress dissent, with the early technical and moderation issues around “Epstein” and immigration-related videos cited as evidence that the transition is off to a rough start. Whether those problems stem from rushed engineering changes or deliberate policy shifts, the perception of political interference is already shaping how users interpret every glitch.
Newsom’s California probe raises the stakes
Into that volatile mix stepped California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has moved quickly to frame the TikTok turmoil as a potential violation of state law. In a public statement, Newsom said he is calling on the California Department of to determine whether TikTok’s handling of Trump-critical content violates California law, signaling that the state is prepared to treat algorithmic bias as a consumer protection or civil rights issue. The governor’s office has framed the review as a response to specific reports that content critical of President Trump was being removed or downranked, and that users who tried to discuss Epstein or immigration enforcement were facing unusual friction.
In a separate X post, the governor’s press account said Newsom was launching the review after his office received reports about possible censorship, and that the announcement came on a Monday as the allegations were gaining national attention, according to a detailed account of Monday’s messaging. Newsom has also repeated that he is asking the California Department of Justice to examine whether the platform’s practices in California are consistent with state protections, reinforcing that the inquiry is not just rhetorical but could lead to legal findings about how a Trump-aligned social network treats political speech, as reflected in another description of his call to the California authorities.
California Democrats see “state-controlled media” risk
Newsom is not the only California Democrat casting TikTok’s new ownership and moderation problems as a structural threat. State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, has publicly slammed the platform as “state-controlled media,” arguing that the sale to a Trump-aligned group has effectively turned a mass-market app into an arm of the president’s political operation. Wiener said that a post he had shared was affected by the platform’s behavior, and his criticism came on a Monday as the allegations were building, according to a report that quoted the State Sen. His language reflects a growing view inside the party that the platform’s problems are not just about isolated moderation calls but about structural incentives to favor the president.
Newsom has echoed some of that concern while keeping his rhetoric more tightly focused on legal standards. In a statement amplified by local coverage, he said, “We are sorry for this disruption and hope to resolve it soon,” before adding, “It’s time to investigate. I am launching a review into whether TikTok is censoring Trump-critical content,” a formulation that tied the investigation directly to the experience of users who said their posts about Trump and Epstein were being suppressed, as described in a detailed account of his comments on Jan. A separate version of that coverage underscored that he was specifically targeting “Trump-critical content” and that he linked the probe to user complaints about both Trump and Epstein, reinforcing that the state sees a pattern rather than a one-off glitch, as reflected in another summary of his comments on Tik.
A test case for platform power in the Trump era
What makes this episode especially fraught is that it is unfolding just as TikTok’s United States operations are being rebuilt under new ownership that has the explicit blessing of President Trump. Critics of the new arrangement have questioned whether the investors will give the app a Trumpian makeover and manipulate the algorithm to favor the administration and its immigration crackdown, with some warning that the platform could become a de facto propaganda outlet if left unchecked, according to a detailed account of how Critics of the deal see the stakes. The early technical issues around “Epstein” and anti-Trump videos are therefore being read less as random bugs and more as a preview of how a politically aligned platform might behave when its interests collide with user speech.
More from Morning Overview