The TikTok Executive Order ⇥ bbc.com
You are probably aware already of the flurry of executive orders signed on the first day of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, a phrase that will hopefully not become as infamous as it already feels. His attack on transgender people is particularly appalling despite its predictability. To my likely overwhelmed U.S. readers, I ask only that you take care of yourselves and each other as best you are able.
For whatever reason,1 among the highest of priorities for this new administration is the status of TikTok. Specifically, delaying enforcement of last year’s law requiring U.S. businesses to not facilitate TikTok’s availability lest they be subject to massive penalties. But laws are only as real as those with power demand them to be and, in this case, one man believes he can override both its enforcement and its stated goals.
Cristiano Lima-Strong and Drew Harwell, Washington Post:
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at halting the ban against TikTok for 75 days so he can “pursue a resolution” outside of a complete prohibition, a legally dubious maneuver that could test his power to stave off a measure he once championed.
The order directs the Justice Department to not take any action to enforce the law nor to “impose any penalties” against companies that carry TikTok for 75 days, a slightly shorter window than Trump had previously suggested. The goal, the order says, is to “determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown of a communications platform used by millions of Americans.”
I wish to issue a small correction. I wrote Sunday that the “leadership of Akamai and Oracle are quite possibly betting their companies on” deferred enforcement, and I am not sure why I hedged. Those leaders are most certainly not betting their companies. Four years down the line, do you really believe the Justice Department will go after Akamai and Oracle for breaking this law? It would be fully capable of doing so, but I guarantee it will not.
Alas, Apple and Google are still not taking that bet. They have enough high-profile legal drama for now.
Lily Jamali and Peter Hoskins, BBC News:
He floated the possibility of a joint venture running the company, saying he was seeking a 50-50 partnership between “the United States” and its Chinese owner ByteDance. But he did not give any further details on how that might work.
I am no legal scholar, but the law specifically says the ownership stake from adversary nations must be less than twenty percent. Not only does the president believe he is capable of nullifying this law’s penalties, he also thinks he can change its requirements on a whim. That is quite the precedent.
-
Corruption and flattery. ↥︎