That seems reasonable, because:<p>1. Trump's declared "delay" is executive overreach and arguably unconstitutional, especially considering how the law[0] is explicit and even contains its own provision for a time-extension that TikTok has refused to exercise.<p>2. If you break a black-letter law because Trump suggested he'd somehow prevent the government from ever prosecuting you... Well, you're handing a crook a weapon he can use to extort you for favors later. Bad idea.<p>3. The PR cost of removing the app has already happened, it makes no sense to bring it back and then get dinged a second time removing it 75-or-whatever days later.<p>[0] Whether that particular law itself should have been ruled unconstitutional is a separate debate.
The article does not support the headline. In any case, I will take the opposite side of this bet. When the Attorney General nominee (Pan Bondi) is sworn in, she will send the non-enforcement letters to Apple and Google.
I don't blame them. There's a deeply important question as to whether any US president ever has the authority to direct federal agencies to not enforce a law at all. They do have some latitude in directing how enforcement by federal agencies occurs. And they have a lot of latitude when it comes the enforcement of presidential directives or agency policies. But a law duly debated and passed by a large majority of congress, signed by the president and already evaluated and allowed to stand by a unanimous Supreme Court? Well, that's uncharted territory.<p>It's a question I find fascinating for several reasons. First, recent presidents of both parties have all danced near, around and over this line to some extent (so we need to address it). Second, there's little constitutional guidance on the question and existing policy and precedent are sparse and inconsistent. Third, I'm not sure what the proper mechanism might be for resolving the question - or if there even is one. Fourth, I'm not entirely sure what I think the answer should be. And all that makes this super interesting.<p>To be clear, I'm ONLY interested in this question from a long-term, system-design perspective. It doesn't matter who the current president is or what the specific law regards. Any useful answer needs to work just as well if it's Biden ordering non-enforcement of certain immigration laws or Trump ordering non-enforcement of a TikTok ban. So <i>please</i> set aside the current context and any partisan preferences and consider it purely as a constitutional issue about rule of law.<p>In terms of what the rule should be when some president 20 years from now orders an agency to not enforce some law, I can see it both ways. I think presidents should have some discretion in how the agencies they manage enforce laws. It just seems pragmatic to have some latitude in how enforcement is implemented because situations can vary. But should that latitude extend to just ignoring the law? How about delaying enforcement for three days because there's a hurricane or something? Okay, sure. What about delaying it months? And then renewing the delay? It's pretty easy to imagine <i>that</i> going wrong someday. So, how do we codify a rule that balances these conflicting things?<p>Finally, who's responsible for coming up with a clear set of rules? I think most people would assume it's the Supreme Court's job to figure it out. The problem is that SCOTUS has rules about what they can consider and when. Someone needs to have standing to sue POTUS and grounds to sue on. I'm not sure that POTUS NOT enforcing a law violates any existing law. But I'm not a constitutional scholar. I just don't know and that's why I think Apple or Google would be pretty crazy to put TikTok back in their app stores relying on this non-enforcement order as safe harbor.