When President Donald Trump said on September 15 that his administration had reached a deal with China to sell Tijook – a famous social platform based on attractive short videos – he said it would come happy news for millions of users in the application. But they may not have been on the edge of the abyss. Although it was banned in January, Tiktok was fully operating because the Trump administration did not implement the law, saying it negotiated on a deal.
On the day before the inauguration of President Trump, American app stores have faced sanctions of $ 5,000 per user Tiktok if they continue to distribute or host the application. Congress has reached, noting that the Chinese government can access the personal data of Tiktok users, has reached a rare consensus of the two parties: it has passed a law that requires a Tiktok ban unless China has been registered on a sale by by atteedance, the parent company.
The extensions that Mr. Trump requested have maintained the application and the prohibition of imposition. But the future of Tijook remained without a solution.
Why did we write this
Congress said that Tijk should be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese owner. For several months, President Trump was controversially delayed in enforcing this law. Now the United States has reached a deal with China that meets the security concerns of America.
Even in the event of a deal with China, the journey has a permanent question about the balance of power and whether the president can simply refuse to enact a law approved by Congress.
What do we know about the Tiktok deal?
The Trump administration said on Monday that it had reached an agreement with China to maintain the operation of Tijook in the United States. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessin described the agreement as a “framework”, and said that Mr. Trump will speak with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Friday to complete the deal.
The United States and China were involved in talks in Madrid this week to discuss trade and other issues. The administration did not issue details about the deal, including the proposed buyer of Tiktok.
Mr. Pesen said that the deal addresses security concerns at a time when “fair to the Chinese.”
Why did Tijk remain available?
Paid concerns that the Chinese government can access the personal data of Tiktok users, the Congress approved by an overwhelming majority in April 2024. The law prohibits the distribution of Tiktok as long as it has ownership of its headquarters in a country appointed as a “foreign opponent”.
the text From the law, the president gave the ability to grant “one-time extension of no more than 90 days” before the ban is enforced-if there is “great progress” to strip the application from its Chinese owner. The president must also ratify this progress to Congress.
On April 4-when the original extension was set-Mr. Trump announced that he would allow Tiktok to continue to run for another 75 days, as the limit set by Congress for 90 days. A third extension was approved in June, which is scheduled to be expired on September 17.
Tiktok has seen many wealthy offers in the meantime, including companies like Amazon and Oracle. US government officials have indicated twice that Tiktok was about to have a buyer, just to conduct negotiations with the Chinese government.
In late July, Trade Minister Howard Lootnick said in an interview with CNBC that Tijook would appear in September if China does not give the United States more control over the application by the next deadline. On August 19, the White House launched its Tiktok account. The next day, the Chinese Communist Party was published Editorial They expressed their hope that Mr. Trump would expand to enforce the ban indefinitely.
Can the president ignore the law issued by Congress?
After President Joe Biden signed a ban on law in the law in 2024, Tijk filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The case went to the Supreme Court, and all nine members supported the ban as a constitutional.
When Mr. Trump ordered the second extension of the ban in April, Prosecutor Bam Bondi wrote to the executives of technology companies such as Apple, saying that companies will not bear the responsibility for distributing the application.
Ms. Bondi also said that Mr. Trump decided that the sudden closure of Tiktok would interfere with the president’s responsibilities for national security and foreign policy. In other words, she confirmed that the president had the authority to cancel the effects of the law.
In March, many members of the Democratic Congress – who opposed the Tikhak ban – wrote to express their concern that the administration was “ignoring the requirements in the law.” A few Republican members also expressed their dissatisfaction, as Senator Chuck Grassley told the correspondents in June that he wanted to “know that Congress did not play.”
Daniel Farper, author of the book “The disputed earth: How to understand the boundaries of the presidential power”, says that the ability of Congress to retreat from this is limited. One of the street members will be an attempt to force Mr. Trump to refuse to confirm those appointed to him or to finance something he wants to impose the law.
However, there appears to be a little political will in Congress to take direct measures to try to enforce the ban.
What does the delay application mean for the balance of power?
Alan Rostenastein, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law Faculty, says presidents are sometimes able to exercise legal discretionary power on any laws to enforce them. This is in the same way that the police officer may decide not to withdraw someone to get it slightly from the maximum speed.
But according to Mrs. Bondi’s messages, Mr. Trump does not submit a demand for discretionary power. Instead, companies told that they “did not violate the verb.” In other words, the administration did not seem in the other direction if technology companies distributed Tiktok – it explicitly confirmed that the companies did not divide the law.
Mr. Farper says this is a decisive discrimination.
He says: “It is true that the president has the right to determine the priorities of the laws, but this does not mean that he can simply decide that he does not like some laws and will not impose them at all.”
Mr. Rostenastein says that there is a theoretical basis for the administration’s argument that he does not have to implement a law that he says will interfere with the president’s constitutional responsibilities.
For example, Congress cannot issue a law that the president is not the supreme leader (as the constitution explicitly states that). The case of the Supreme Court during the Obama administration said that the president does not have to follow a law from Congress, who was asking him to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel.
But according to Mr. Rostenastein, Mr. Trump’s claim that he could reduce the Tiktok ban approved by Congress because it involves national security takes this argument to an unprecedented level.
He says: “Through this logic, almost anything can interfere with foreign affairs or other countries with the president’s constitutional powers,” he says.
He does not believe the fact that Mr. Trump has reached a deal that changes anything.
“You cannot choose and choose,” he says. “You cannot say, I will allow the president to disobey laws only when this leads to a good result.”
The editor’s note: This story was updated on September 16, the day of its original publication, to explain that President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are planning to speak, not a face meeting on September 19.