<a href="https://reason.com/2025/07/10/trump-wont-enforce-the-tiktok-ban-is-that-constitutional/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
In a bold, and some might say reckless, move, President Donald Trump has decided not to enforce a federal law banning TikTok. That’s right! Tech companies are being told they can break the law without consequence—sounds like a storyline straight out of a political drama, doesn’t it? This comes amid Trump’s attempts to negotiate a sale for the Chinese-owned app, raising eyebrows about the role of presidential power and the meaning of the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Is this executive power run amok or just a savvy business move?
Historically, presidents like Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama have chosen to sidestep certain laws, claiming they were unconstitutional. Jefferson outright refused to enforce the Sedition Act, while Obama pulled the Defense of Marriage Act from court defense. But here’s the kicker: Trump isn’t challenging the TikTok ban on constitutional grounds to preserve anyone’s rights; he simply asserts his authority to ignore it while seeking a buyer. That’s a whole new level of executive authority, and it raises some serious questions about checks and balances in our government. It’s almost like we’re living in an episode of “What’s Trump Gonna Do Next?”
As the saga unfolds, one has to wonder: What’s next? If a president can ignore laws they dislike, how does that impact the integrity of our legal system? With TikTok at the center of it all, it’s not just about social media anymore—it’s about how far a president can go. What do you think? Is this drama a slippery slope for democracy or just an innovative swing for the app world?
About the Author
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!
