Trump has no authority to delay TikTok ban
The TikTok ban is the law of the land, and Trump's refusal to enforce it is a dereliction of his duties as president. Those who are silent on it should put aside their own personal motives and bring more attention to this fact.
TikTok ban is the law of the land
Many forget that a TikTok ban was originally Trump's idea, and that many Democrats wrote the idea off as just another piece of his anti-China agenda. However, things have changed. Trump seemingly developed a soft spot for TikTok because he believes it helped him win reelection.
Still, in the time between Trump's original stance and his change of heart on the issue, a law banning TikTok passed the House and Senate and was signed in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden.
The Supreme Court even upheld the ban, against the arguments of TikTok's lawyers.
Trump saved TikTok - for now. Guess it's not a national security threat anymore? | Opinion
The law banning TikTok does have a provision that allows for the president to delay the deadline for TikTok to cease operations or agree to a sale. Still, the criteria allowing for such an extension are nowhere close to being fulfilled.
The text of the ban allows for the president to extend the deadline a single time for 90 days, so long as TikTok is close to reaching a deal with an American company to sell. There is no indication that's the case, and Trump's arbitrary executive orders are flagrantly illegal.
Even Trump's guise in refusing to enforce the law - the idea that he is attempting to give TikTok time to broker a deal - doesn't make sense. Nothing would be more compelling for TikTok to sell the app to an American company than the ban going into effect. An app that cannot run is useless to its owners, and their best course of action would be to sell.
Trump has no authority to refuse to enforce the law
The president does not have discretion over which laws he would like to enforce and which he would like to ignore. Trump's decision to arbitrarily extend TikTok's lifespan does exactly that.
The president, along with the rest of the executive branch, has an obligation to enforce the laws of the nation that have been passed by Congress and signed into law. A president's job is to enforce the law, whereas Congress' job is to decide what the law is. When a president can choose which laws he is to enforce, he is deciding what the law is, in a sense.
Opinion: AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran.
That's why Trump's refusal to enforce the ban is his most lawless action as president. Sure, there's the constitutionality of his deportation schemes and his reinterpretation of birthright citizenship, but those instances had judicial checks. In no other area is Trump as actively derelict in his duties as president without repercussions as he is in relation to the TikTok ban.
For all the talk about Trump being a lawless president, Democrats and Republicans have both been relatively quiet about this single worst example of Trump acting as such.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Republicans should be wary about the next administration of Democrats that comes along refusing to enforce a certain law because they disagree with it, or they simply don't feel like it. If Democrats were the ones refusing to enforce the ban on TikTok, it would be the only thing Republicans talked about.
I'm sure that the outrage would be far louder if Trump were refusing to enforce other statutes, such as parts of the National Firearms Act, the tax code, or any other number of statutes that Democrats are sympathetic to. However, because it concerns a popular social media platform remaining in service, the complaints are rather quiet.
Refusal to enforce laws is not a path Americans want our presidents to travel. That slippery slope can take us to some very dangerous places.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
17 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Starmer seeks to quell revolt to speed through welfare reforms
Downing Street insiders said talks were taking place with Labour MPs about the legislation after 126 of them publicly backed a move to block it. The first vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will take place on Tuesday and a concerted effort has been launched by ministers to win round potential rebels. The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' If the legislation clears its first hurdle it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9. Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns. Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill.' A No 10 source said: 'Delivering fundamental change is not easy, and we all want to get it right, so of course we're talking to colleagues about the Bill and the changes it will bring, we want to start delivering this together on Tuesday.' Overnight six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks. The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces the most serious revolt of his premiership (Ben Stansall/PA) The new signatories include the Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee chairman Toby Perkins, Stoke-on-Trent Central MP Gareth Snell, Newcastle upon Tyne MP Mary Glindon and Tamworth MP Sarah Edwards. North Ayrshire and Arran MP Irene Campbell and Colchester MP Pam Cox, both of whom won their seats in the party's 2024 landslide election victory, have also added their names. The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties. The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit. The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year. Existing claimants will be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support, a move seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. But the fact so many Labour MPs are prepared to put their names to the 'reasoned amendment' calling for a change of course shows how entrenched the opposition remains. One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months. 'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country. 'It's not very grown-up.' They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.' The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published. Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street. Asked about attacks on Mr McSweeney, trade minister Douglas Alexander said: 'I'm much less interested in the gossip about SW1 than whether this legislation works on the streets, in the towns, in the communities right across the country.' He told Sky News it was 'for the Prime Minister to make his judgments' about who works in Downing Street but 'the fact is that team delivered us an historic victory only last July, against expectations'. He told ITV's Good Morning Britain: 'If there are practical ways that we can improve this legislation, we should. 'We should do it not to buy off rebels, but because it's a Labour thing to do and that's the conversation that I expect ministers will be engaged in in the coming days.' Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated overall, 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms. The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment. Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip. The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment. There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said. NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels. Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: — Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025 It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said. A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday. Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people. A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
Supreme leader, in first appearance since ceasefire, says Iran would strike back if attacked
DUBAI, June 26 (Reuters) - Iran would respond to any future U.S. attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel. Khamenei, 86, said any attack on Iran would come at "great cost", and noted that Iran had fired on the largest U.S. base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. "The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region," Khamenei said. His pre-recorded remarks were aired on state television. As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the 12-day Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini. "The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centres in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made," he added. U.S. President Donald Trump said "Sure" on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment programme.
Daily Mirror
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
White House posts bizarre 'Daddy Donald' video as Trump leans into NATO nickname
NATO chief Mark Rutte has been widely mocked after referring to Donald Trump as "daddy" in an attempt to sway the US President toward more clear support for the defensive alliance The White House has posted a bizarre "Daddy Donald" video as US President Trump leans into the head of NATO's cringeworthy nickname for him. "Daddy's hey, hey, Daddy," The White House posted on its official X page, along with the lyrics to Usher's 2010 song Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home). The post included a clip of Trump meeting officials at the NATO summit in the Netherlands earlier this week. It was clear from the moment Trump entered the summit that a charm offensive operation had been strategically planned and carried out. NATO chief Mark Rutte showered Mr Trump with praise, adding member states raising their defence spending "wouldn't have happened" without the Republican leader. When Mr Trump compared Israel and Iran to two children fighting Mr Rutte responded: " Then daddy has to sometimes use strong language." The submissive language from Mr Rutte raised eyebrows online, with many also claiming NATO must be in serious trouble if it needed to court Mr Trump with such brazen comments. Mr Trump's administration has hammered NATO allies for its low spending on defence when compared to GDP. He has also presented an inconsistent message about whether the US would stand by Article 5's cast-iron vow to defend member states should they be attacked by an external enemy. But the White House's post did not attract the blanket praise that its social media team might have hoped for. Instead of viewing the clip as a projection of strength, many found it strange. One commenter said: "OK, that's weird." Another added: "Who dies this appeal to?" A third commented: "We are not a serious people." But there were some who praised it and leaned into the post, with one posting: "They said 'no kings' not 'no daddy." A fifth commenter shared: "Whoever made this video should get a raise." Another said: "Absolutely epic. Whoever runs this page deserves a raise." Since being shared, the post has been viewed more than 2.7 million times and has received some 48,000 likes. Mr Rutte later denied he had called the president "daddy." He explained: "The daddy thing, I didn't call [Trump] daddy, what I said, is that sometimes... In Europe, I hear sometimes countries saying, 'hey, Mark, will the US stay with us?' "And I said, "that sounds a little bit like a small child asking his daddy, 'hey, are you still staying with the family?' So in that sense, I use daddy, not that I was calling President Trump daddy."
