> But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA.

> Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

That was explicitly brought up in oral arguments by the court, and the response by the US Gov was: "The act is written to be content neutral."

The court's opinion explains that they agree the law is "appropriately tailored" to remain content neutral. Whether it's "enemy propaganda" or not is, in their view, irrelevant to the application of the law. TikTok can exist in America, using TikTok is not banned, the owner just can't be a deemed "foreign adversary", which there is a history of enforcement (to some degree).