FOIA docs: the Trump administration claimed broad authority to nullify laws in letters to tech firms releasing them of legal liability related to the TikTok ban
The implications are breathtaking. the line between a normal legal state and exceptions/prerogative state can be shifted at will. Dean Baker / @deanbaker13 : Trump says he can claim extraordinary power as president because his victory margin last year was almost as large as Hillary Clinton's in 2016! — www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/u... Kim Lane Scheppele / @kimlanelaw : Trump has turned the constitutional mandate that he ‘take care’ that the laws be faithfully executed into its opposite. He now claims the power to pick and choose the laws to be enforced. www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/u... Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix : “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.” Corey Quinn / @quinnypig.com : For me, the wild part is that Google and Apple (the app stores that are the law's enforcement target / mechanism) had Legal review these and went “sure, why not? Sounds great to us!” [embedded post] @socialmedialab.ca : The TikTok case is a canary in the coal mine. Trump is chipping away at the US constitutional order and replacing it with a king-like executive, one who sidesteps Congress, bullies private companies, and wields national security as a political weapon. [embedded post] Judah Grunstein / @judah-grunstein : Even Nixon waited three years after he resigned before claiming that if the president does it, that means it's not illegal. MickieMorganfield / @mickiedances : www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/u... In licensing otherwise illegal conduct, Trump set a precedent expanding executive power. Bondi letters to tech companies have Trump nullifying a statute banning TikTok Congress passed with bipartisan majorities in 2024, unanimously upheld by SCOTUS. Erich Luepke / @erichluepke : So it seems Trump is allowing TikTok to exist because they serve his political interests? Nilay Patel / @reckless : Exposing your nation-state of a company to existential levels of damages based on a two-page letter claiming “plenary authority” to forbid future litigation with literally no citations or actual settlement agreements to that effect is like the opposite of fiduciary duty Nilay Patel / @reckless : If I'm an Apple or Google shareholder I'm looking at this letter from Pam Bondi promising not to enforce the TikTok ban and saying this is nowhere close to good enough given the potential scope of damages. It's basically a pinky swear based on nothing. www.theverge.com/tiktok/69798... [image] Nero Wolfe / @nero-wolfe : I had much the same reaction, but it only works if both Google and Apple agree. If one defects, then the other will coordinate with TikTok to drive users to it. It would be a PR nightmare because they'd also have Trump using the bully pulpit against them, creator sob stories going viral, etc. Chris Geidner / @chrisgeidner : Bondi's letters are absurd or horrifying, there is no third option. — What's more alarming, with that in mind, is that the general counsel of some of the largest companies in the country said, “Sure, we'll take this,” and the companies kept TikTok in their app stores. Chris Geidner / @chrisgeidner : Bondi's “reasoning” if you can call it that, is, essentially, the end of separation of powers. There is not just a unitary executive — there is a unitary government. — Congress's determination in the TikTok law — signed by the president and upheld by SCOTUS — is meaningless if Trump says otherwise. … Henry / @henrythedog : I get that people don't want to enforce the TikTok ban for uh reasons, but its like SUPER fucking bad to have the law be “whatever Trump feels like” Jeff Sabin / @texanokie07 : As Trump has clearly initiated (see, e.g., TikTok, impoundments, agency shuttering/reorganizations), laws have no meaning if the executive refuses to enforce them. Mastodon: Jan Schaumann / @jschauma@mstdn.social : This is why I keep going on about the stupid TikTok ban: Trump assumes the power to set laws aside at his discretion. Laws Congress passed, the (previous) President signed into law, and which the Supreme Court upheld on challenge. — If you think that power will only be exercised this one time for this one purpose, then you're a fool. … X: Megan Gray / @megangra : wow, these Trump immunity letters to Google/Apple/etc. are wild. Oracle wasn't even a letter recipient until much later. But Amazon is here, so is AWS the hosting provider? Interesting to see Akamai, Digital Realty Trust, Fastly, T-Mobile US, and LG Electronics. Michael A. Cohen / @speechboy71 : On the anniversary of America's Declaration of Independence from monarchy we find out the President of the United States is acting like a king https://www.nytimes.com/... [image] Alan Rozenshtein / @arozenshtein : 🚨 BREAKING: DOJ has released the first round of TikTok letters that AG Bondi sent to Google, Oracle, Akamai Apple & others, purporting to relieve them of liability. The primary basis is the Trump's determination that PAFACAA would interfere with Art. II foreign affairs powers. [image] David Dayen / @ddayen : Way back in January (left), we noticed that Trump was just ignoring a federal law (the TikTok divestiture law), setting a terrible precedent of an imperial executive. Glad others are catching up. (right) [image] Jack Goldsmith / @jacklgoldsmith : My take on the Bondi letters related to not enforcing the TikTok ban—"an astounding assertion of executive power—maybe the broadest I have ever seen any president or Justice Department make, ever, in any context—and that is saying something." https://executivefunctions.substack.com / ... [image] Forums: Hacker News : White House claims expansive power to nullify TikTok ban and other laws r/politics : Trump Claims Sweeping Power to Nullify Laws, Letters on TikTok Ban Show r/politics : Trump's Defiance of TikTok Ban Prompted Immunity Promises to 10 Tech Companies r/law : Trump Claims Sweeping Power to Nullify Laws, Letters on TikTok Ban Show r/law : Trump's Defiance of TikTok Ban Prompted Immunity Promises to 10 Tech Companies r/neoliberal : Trump's Defiance of TikTok Ban Prompted Immunity Promises to 10 Tech Companies r/politics : Trump's Defiance of TikTok Ban Prompted Immunity Promises to 10 Tech Companies
Context & Ripple Effects
The administration first pursued delay through executive action, then repeatedly pushed the sale deadline back, including a third extension whose legal basis was questioned. The new documents show how that policy was operationalized for the companies needed to keep the service available.
The stakes extend beyond the platform itself: the statute had been unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, while Apple and Google had initially withheld TikTok amid liability concerns. The letters supplied a federal-executive rationale for a different compliance posture.
First-order effects
- Apple and Google could keep TikTok in their US app stores after their general counsels accepted Bondi's asserted liability rationale, despite the underlying statute remaining in force.
- Tech firms receiving the letters gain an administration-backed basis to continue TikTok-related services, but their exposure depends on whether that asserted protection withstands legal or political challenge.
Second-order effects
- App stores, cloud providers, and delivery infrastructure must weigh statutory obligations against executive assurances, making legal-risk decisions more dependent on current enforcement policy.
- Congress and potential litigants gain a sharper target for challenging the extensions: not merely delayed enforcement, but the claimed authority to relieve private companies of liability.
Third-order effects
- If this approach persists, technology regulation could shift toward case-by-case executive dispensations, reducing the predictability that firms normally derive from enacted statutes and court rulings.
- The episode tests whether foreign-affairs claims can reshape domestic tech-law enforcement; its durable effect will depend on congressional response and judicial review.
The trend: This is part of a broader shift in which geopolitical technology policy is being executed through discretionary enforcement as much as through stable statutory rules.