> Attorney General Pam Bondi told tech companies that they could lawfully violate a statute barring American companies from supporting TikTok based on a sweeping claim that President Trump has the constitutional power to set aside laws, newly disclosed documents show.
> Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his “constitutional duties,” so the law banning the social media app must give way to his “core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”
> The letters ... portrayed Mr. Trump as having nullified the legal effects of a statute that Congress passed by large bipartisan majorities in 2024 and that the Supreme Court unanimously upheld.
As far as power grab politics go, this is a smart move, picking something so popular yet relatively low impact as far as real world issues go. It's a total Trojan Horse of course.
On the one hand, this is terrifying precedent for future behavior. On the other hand, the ban is stupid and shouldn't exist, so it's hard for me to get upset. Sometimes the right things happen in the wrong way.
Democrats should just declare they hold the law as valid and any tech company that ignores it will suffer the consequences it prescribes when they come back into power.
Ridiculous that this got flagged. Do people think that Trump rewriting laws to suit his whim isn't going to become relevant to their own companies and projects?
> In letters to companies like Apple and Google, Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his “constitutional duties,” so the law banning the social media app must give way to his “core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”
This is like tariff negotiations with the whole world being about a fentanyl emergency. I can't wait to hear oral arguments on this in 2027 after this supposed power is temporarily upheld from the shadow docket.
7 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 20.0 ms ] thread> Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his “constitutional duties,” so the law banning the social media app must give way to his “core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”
> The letters ... portrayed Mr. Trump as having nullified the legal effects of a statute that Congress passed by large bipartisan majorities in 2024 and that the Supreme Court unanimously upheld.
This is like tariff negotiations with the whole world being about a fentanyl emergency. I can't wait to hear oral arguments on this in 2027 after this supposed power is temporarily upheld from the shadow docket.