The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Trump's TikTok Executive Order
Four days ago, the Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban. Even before that decision was issued, President Biden announced that he would not enforce the policy for the final 36 hours of his presidency. (In hindsight, he may have been too busy signing pardons.) Yet, for a short while, TikTok went dark. And then TikTok turned on again, in anticipation of Trump's inauguration. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order concerning TikTok.
The order echoes President-Elect Trump's amicus brief. Trump asserts that the law impinges on his authority over national security:
I have the unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States, the conduct of foreign policy, and other vital executive functions. To fulfill those responsibilities, I intend to consult with my advisors, including the heads of relevant departments and agencies on the national security concerns posed by TikTok, and to pursue a resolution that protects national security while saving a platform used by 170 million Americans. My Administration must also review sensitive intelligence related to those concerns and evaluate the sufficiency of mitigation measures TikTok has taken to date.
Like in the brief, Trump refers to the timing of the statute as "unfortunate." This timing was no accident. Congress intended this decision to fall to President Biden.
The unfortunate timing of section 2(a) of the Act — one day before I took office as the 47th President of the United States — interferes with my ability to assess the national security and foreign policy implications of the Act's prohibitions before they take effect.
And Trump repeats his refrain that he can make a deal.
This timing also interferes with my ability to negotiate a resolution to avoid an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform while addressing national security concerns.
Trump directs his administration to take no action against anyone for seventy-five days.
Accordingly, I am instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity 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.
Trump doesn't quite say that the statute is unconstitutional. There is no basis, then for an Article II override. Rather, this seems to be purely an act of prosecutorial discretion. But it is more than that. Trump promises that no future penalties will be imposed on companies that work with TikTok.
Sec. 2. Action. (a) I hereby order the Attorney General not to take any action on behalf of the United States to enforce the Act for 75 days from the date of this order, to permit my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action with respect to TikTok. During this period, the Department of Justice shall take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act, including for distributing, maintaining, or updating (or enabling the distribution, maintenance, or updating) of any foreign adversary controlled application as defined in the Act. In light of this direction, even after the expiration of the above-specified period, the Department of Justice shall not take any action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period or any period prior to the issuance of this order, including the period of time from January 19, 2025, to the signing of this order.
In theory at least, the next administration could choose to bring an action within the statute of limitations. But that is unlikely. What makes this more unlikely is that the Attorney General must issue a non-enforcement letter:
(b) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to issue written guidance to implement the provisions of subsection (a).
(c) I further order the Attorney General to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period, as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act until the issuance of this Executive Order.
I am fairly certain that these sorts of letters can be relied upon in the event of any future enforcement action. Alan Rozhenstein flags Zach Price's article about reliance on non-enforcement. Alan makes some fair points, but as a matter of realpolitik, I doubt there will ever be a prosecution. And that is enough for the lawyers at Oracle and Akami.
Apart from the estoppel argument, I see here a fairly clear violation of the Take Care Clause. This is not simply an exercise in discretion. The President is authorizing the violation of a statute that was just upheld by the Supreme Court. And this order, like others, issues direct orders to the Attorney General about how to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Trump is making clear that he sees the Attorney General as his subordinate. I am inclined to agree with this view of Article II, but it represents a departure from how past presidents have interacted with their Attorneys General.
Finally, the Attorney General can take steps to block enforcement of the ban by private parties or states.
(d) Because of the national security interests at stake and because section 2(d) of the Act vests authority for investigations and enforcement of the Act only in the Attorney General, attempted enforcement by the States or private parties represents an encroachment on the powers of the Executive. The Attorney General shall exercise all available authority to preserve and defend the Executive's exclusive authority to enforce the Act.
I'm a bit confused, as I don't see any private causes of action under the statute.
As a coda to signing the order, President Trump announced one possible deal:
The order, one of Mr. Trump's first acts after taking office, instructs the attorney general not to take any action to enforce the law so that his administration has "an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward." The order is retroactive to Sunday.
As he signed the order, Mr. Trump told reporters that "the U.S. should be entitled to get half of TikTok" if a deal for the app is reached, without going into detail. He said he thought TikTok could be worth a trillion dollars.
The order could immediately face legal challenges, including over whether a president has the power to halt enforcement of a federal law. Companies subject to the law, which forbids providing services to Chinese-owned TikTok, may determine that the order does not provide a shield from legal liability.
Trump said: "If I do the deal for the United States, I think we should get half."
After Trump filed his brief, I wrote:
After nearly a decade, I think people still do not understand Trump. He doesn't play like everyone else does, and that is what infuriates people. When he says something that people deem outlandish, it is merely an opening bid, not the final offer. I think he views this case like he views just about everything else--as a deal to be made.
All his proceeding are going to plan.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Josh,
I think it's important to talk about the legal ramifications and political ramifications of what the DC Prisons are doing to the now pardoned J6'ers.
The ones that are be let to leave the gulags are going out on stretchers because the Democrat prison guards are assaulting them. US Marshalls have actually intervened.
What is the criminal and civil liability these Democrat politicians (the mayor) and the Democrat prison guards and leadership have?
Surely this intentional assault and containment beyond the pardon isn't covered under QI.
**Sorry to hijack**
Do you have some sort of source for this?
I can't speak to the assaults, but local TV says DC jail not releasing them. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/jan-6-inmates-supporters-await-dc-jail-release-for-2nd-night/3821416/
Exactly what grounds do they have to hold them?!?
And they'll have a riot there if they don't let them go -- and maybe that is the intent.
Is there such a thing as a Class Action Habeas?
On the grounds that there are court orders to incarcerate them. If you want to be released before the scheduled end of your sentence, you need a judge to say so; you can't just announce to the warden that you deserve to be let out.
These people were pardoned.
Are you playing stupid?
Says who? Is there a pardon with their names on it? Or does the president's announcement just describe a class of people? How does the prison warden know who fits within that class? If someone received a pardon for his acts related to J6, does that mean he's entitled to be released even if he's in prison for other, unrelated acts as well? None of that is up to a prison warden to figure out.
You're literally making up excuses, which is downright sickening. You have no idea but that doesn't stop you from your reactionary bootlicking and authority worshipping.
200 of the 1600 political prisoners have been released. Some have been seen getting released on stretchers. Some were released after the US Marshalls intervened. Others are being refused release.
Pardoned/Commuted people are being assaulted and held in violation of their rights by petty cruel subhuman govies, and because you're a govie worshipper you knee-jerk defend them.
It's gross and shameful.
I'm pretty confused by your reply.
I'm reading David's comment. Looks to me like he gave very specific reasons that a warden needs more info to know who should be let out.
Like if someone is in jail both for a J6 offense and for something else. That one in particular seems obvious and intuitive. (I don't know if he's right that a court order is needed. But that one in particular seems to make it obvious, hang on there's got to be *some* step involved to resolve that. How would it make sense for the warden to do that?)
When I read your reply all I can see is that you think his comment is disgusting.
Would you mind explaining how you think a warden is supposed to handle the possibility of multiple offenses?
The PRESIDENT can, and it's insubordination not to obey.
But these people haven't been convicted yet...
Oh, if they haven't been convicted, then they're being held under a judge's pretrial detention order, and they need that judge to dismiss the case or at least order release.
Insubordination is a military offense. Also, the president issuing a pardon to someone is not the president issuing an order to a prison warden. Also: which people haven't been convicted yet?
On fourth anniversary, fate of nearly 500 pending Capitol riot cases in doubt
"
WASHINGTON — The fate of nearly 500 criminal cases stemming from the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, remained uncertain this week as the nation marked its fourth anniversary.
As of Monday, federal prosecutors had filed 1,583 cases connected to the Jan. 6 attack. Of those, approximately 1,100 have reached sentencing. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, of the remaining cases, 170 involve defendants who have either been convicted or pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing and approximately 300 involve defendants still awaiting trial."
You mean you hadn't heard the complaints about people sitting in jail waiting on trials where the likely sentences were less than the time they'd already spend in jail?
I've heard this complaint from MAGA about white people only — along with complaints about jail conditions for white people only. But MAGA isn't reliable, and kept lying about people being held without charges, so there's no reason to believe they were correct here either.
Note that your statistics do not actually speak to the issue you raise. 1583 charged, 1100 sentenced, 170 awaiting sentencing, leaving about 300 awaiting trial, but nothing about how many of those 300 are in jail.
DC Jail Reportedly Refuses To Release Some J6 Defendants. What’s Going On?
At least part of what's going on may be that while the inmates who were already convicted were pardoned, and are legally entitled to immediate release, (The pardon expressly dictated immediate release.) a lot of the J-6 defendants still have not been tried, and so were not "pardoned".
Trump ordered those cases dismissed, but apparently this give the local authorities an excuse to hold onto them for a while yet while going through the motions of the dismissal. Possibly even doing a bit of slow-walking of the process, too.
Kind of paradoxical, actually.
We do have at least some testimony claiming parting beatings on the way out. We'll see if that goes anywhere.
It is not an "excuse." It is a reason. "Local authorities" have no say in the matter at all; pursuant to actual law — not the whim of a deranged autocrat — dismissal requires a court order. DOJ has to file a motion to dismiss in each case, individually, and then a judge has to rule on the motion. Even if that judicial ruling is treated as a rubber stamp, it's still hundreds of cases to deal with. And it's been one business day.
That is where I net out = And it's been one business day.
What's the max number of business days you think is appropriate for processing?
Why? The ban seems fairly popular (and to be getting more so), and it’s not like Trump could be expected to feel any obligation to stick to his position out of a sense of honor or consistency or anything. It seems to me that it would be extremely foolish for a company to rely on a prediction that Trump won’t change his mind three months from now.
Moreover, the SOL extends beyond Trump's term of office, unless he plans to try to remain president for life, which he might. So even if he didn't change his mind, the next president can.
While he would, all things being equal, want to go for a third term, all things aren't equal. For one thing, he doesn't want Milena to be that pissed off.
Lucky Brett never engages in mind reading. Here, of two people!
"attempted enforcement by the States or private parties represents an encroachment on the powers of the Executive."
Would that include an ISP (e.g. Verizon) blocking Tic Tok?
No.
All his proceeding are going to plan.
Yes, it "infuriates" people that he breaks the law with impunity while being a horrible person & unfit for his office (or any office).
The critics quite well understand him. At the end of the day, it is unclear how unique he is though he is a level of worse from the typical officeholder. He is particularly dangerous though he has qualities of other tyrants and authoritarians.
JB is quite busy lately. He needs to pace himself given all that is going to be happening now that his guy is in power.
I read the EO yesterday (or maybe it was earlier today; the days blend together pretty quickly), and I hate hate hate the parts that talk about Trump's imaginary "national security" power. A president is not a king. He's commander in chief of the armed forces, and he's responsible for diplomatic interactions with foreign countries. He does not have any special right to get involved with something just because it supposedly involves national security or foreign relations. Congress passed a law. It did not give Trump any authority. That's too damn bad for Trump. (See the Steel Seizure Cases for what SCOTUS has to say about that.)
> attempted enforcement by the States or private parties represents an encroachment on the powers of the Executive.
Is Trump ordering the AG to coerce Google and Apple to put TikTok back in their app stores while he works out a deal? That seems concerning, and I don't know what power the AG would have to force such a thing.
> Trump is making clear that he sees the Attorney General as his subordinate. I am inclined to agree with this view of Article II, but it represents a departure from how past presidents have interacted with their Attorney Generals.
And we've seen how badly that went for the last president. I would note that the plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General, not Attorney Generals.
Not a word about communism? Trump wants the US to own 50% of a company.
Also confusing is the national security part. Is Trump saying that shutting down TikTok is a national security risk? That is 100% opposite of the basis for enacting the law.
Espionage is not a national security issue?
Is it espionage if the data they collect is willingly given?
YES!!!
There is no espionage. TikTok — unlike Trump — is not stealing classified information.
You don't know that = There is no espionage. TikTok — unlike Trump — is not stealing classified information.
We don't know what data is/was harvested by Tik Tok off every phone. Or desktop.
Phones and computers on classified networks aren't going to be able to download or access TikTok without some serious wrongdoing by their owner.
And even were this not the case, the fault would be with the person spilling the classified info.
I'm coming around that this is a solution searching for a problem.
"And even were this not the case, the fault would be with the person spilling the classified info."
I'm glad you've finally come around on Hillary's guilt. 😉
Seriously, while it's true that phones and computers on classified networks shouldn't be able to load TikTok, the intelligence value of information that's not on such networks shouldn't be discounted. Half of espionage is learning enough about key people that you can blackmail them, after all.
She didn't spill any info, of course. As has been explained to you in detail by a number of people over the years.
Public information is public; TikTok isn't granting special access.
Speculating your way into an unestablished problem is a bad way to make policy.
"Half of espionage is learning enough about key people that you can blackmail them, after all."
MAGAtards sure are experts at a lot of things they know nothing about.
Not only does he think the United States government should own the app, he says he's willing to pay $500 billion for it. This, according to Josh, is how you "negotiate."
"Apart from the estoppel argument, I see here a fairly clear violation of the Take Care Clause."
Isn't that clause so long dead that it risks desuetude, and only cranks like me get pissed off about it being violated in any sort of principled way? (As I am pissed off about Trump doing this.)
Cranks like THIS only get pissed off about it being violated when a Republican is in office, and spend half their whining about cases where the President IS taking care, with respect to laws they don't like. Think they'll fire the site up again?
No, that's the BrettLaw take care clause.
Though to be fair I don't know what Blackman is thinking re: the take care clause either; his jurisprudence is nothing if not inconsistent.
"I'm not going to enforce it AT ALL." is a pretty clear take care violation, Sarcastr0, absent some argument that the law in question is unconstitutional.