Executive Order Delays TikTok Ban For 75 Days 142
President Donald Trump signed an executive order today delaying the TikTok ban for 75 days. The Verge reports: The order, issued on Trump's first day of office, is meant to effectively extend the deadline established by The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act for ByteDance to sell its stake by undercutting penalties on American companies like Apple and Google working with TikTok. It directs the Attorney General "not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way." The AG is supposed to "issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred."
The order furthermore instructs the Department of Justice to "take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act" and says they should be barred from doing so "for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period or any period prior to the issuance of this order, including the period of time from January 19, 2025, to the signing of this order." It remains unclear whether Trump can legally pause the ban. It's also unclear how he plans to enforce a 50 percent "joint venture" ownership with the company, a move he announced on Sunday.
The order furthermore instructs the Department of Justice to "take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act" and says they should be barred from doing so "for any conduct that occurred during the above-specified period or any period prior to the issuance of this order, including the period of time from January 19, 2025, to the signing of this order." It remains unclear whether Trump can legally pause the ban. It's also unclear how he plans to enforce a 50 percent "joint venture" ownership with the company, a move he announced on Sunday.
So...who gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So...who gets it (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump, but not directly.
I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.
They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.
That's my prediction based on the delay and TikTok being invited to the inauguration.
Re:So...who gets it (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump, but not directly.
I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.
They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.
Will tilt the algorithms in his favour? They are already doing that. Trump thrives on adulation, he will not starve.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, but not directly.
I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.
They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.
Will tilt the algorithms in his favour? They are already doing that. Trump thrives on adulation, he will not starve.
Right. Funny how he made fun of it with very punctual phrases for years and years. Now, he gets info that it actually helped those who voted for him communicate. That means it's a must-have now.
"Why were we talking about this in the first place? Security? Security of my 'biggest in the world' finances? No? Then SHUT UP. I know more than anyone ever has about this. Get me more praises but don't touch my hair."
Re: (Score:2)
Trump thrives on adulation, he will not starve.
But those are empty calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, but not directly.
I predict TikTok will bend to his will and effectively become a Trump media company without a sale.
They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.
That's my prediction based on the delay and TikTok being invited to the inauguration.
All about money and popularity. I can't wait to see them stop sending data back to China. That will be the complete solution of the problem to all those involved.
Well, except for those who have access to the data and just change the method they send it back to China.
Money laundering has been a "thing" for so long but needs to be modernized. Not only will the data be sent to a foreign adversary, but will be the first in history to make a new daily-use phrase in the tech industry out of something horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll agree to stop sending data to China, some audits n such, and tilt the algorithms in his favor.
I believe ByteDance is still based in China, in which case they can't do that. If CCP wants them to keep sending data back to China, they'll keep sending it back to China or very bad things will happen to the CEO and other senior management. They would have to sell. Maybe Musk will end up buying them.
Re:So...who gets it (Score:5, Funny)
Trump, Musk, or Zuckerberg ???
If Elon gets it, he'll probably rename it "TiXToX" or "XicXoc" ... :-)
Re: (Score:1)
If Elon gets it, he'll probably rename it "TiXToX" or "XicXoc" ... :-)
And if he wants to waste more of his money buying yet another platform I don't use*, more power to him. He'll probably end up ruining it like he did to Twitter, but death by enshitification has become almost an internet tradition at this point.
* Seriously, even for all the bitching I've done recently about the ban, I don't even have a TikTok account. It's entirely the concept that the US government deplatformed 170 million Americans by attaching the ban as a rider to a foreign aid bill that really trouble
Re:So...who gets it (Score:4, Interesting)
The only argument I've heard that made sense of a Tik-Tok ban was made (repeated?) by Jimmy Kimmel. The argument is that China plays a long game and youngins using it now will eventually become the people who populate industries and government in years to come, and that China will then have plenty of information on them to use as it sees fit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We keep guns around, devices which are literally intended for killing, because it says so in the constitution. Just like we've learned to live with all the problems caused by guns, we were supposed to either work around or just come to accept the problems inherent to allowing Americans to venture out onto the global internet. That's how freedom works. There is no sensible argument for banning TikTok, only a vain attempt at justifying a loss of freedom.
"A foreign adversary is going to use their influence
Re: (Score:2)
Even that is a little insane. I've heard of adults being embarrassed by mass exposure campaigns of stuff they did as kids when, say, it was ridiculously racist or something similar, but even then it's usually only been a "Welp, now I'm humiliated", not "I'm 40 and I lost my job over using the N word when I was 12". The nearest thing I can think of to somewhere where someone did lose their job over something they did when they were younger was James Gunn, and that wasn't "I was 12 at the time, and that was 2
Re: (Score:2)
"Ah, president Jones, congratulations on your election. It would be a shame if those twerking videos became public, no?"
"I don't care, twerking is what got me elected, fool!"
Re: (Score:3)
It would be pretentious to name it after his kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, Musk, or Zuckerberg ???
If Elon gets it, he'll probably rename it "TiXToX" or "XicXoc" ... :-)
It'll just become x.x, the x to the x to get the x in your x.
Re: (Score:2)
X-X.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely Jeff Yass (Score:2)
It is most likely Jeff Yass [fortune.com] a billionaire donor to Trump ...
Trump's not pausing the ban (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump's not pausing the ban. He's technically (temporarily) refusing to enforce the ban, which is still in effect. The impact is the same, but the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional power to repeal or pausing the ban, but they can ignore it. The only two responses to this presidential action are that (1) certain parties can sue to force the executive branch to enforce the law (but the executive branch can still refused to obey the court order) and (2) Congress can impeach and remove the President. Neither response is likely.
Re: (Score:2)
However, could you provide more clarification on the Cer
Re: (Score:1)
The due process for the courts to rule that the ban violated constitutional rights like free speech has come and gone. It does not and there is no appeal process to be invoked.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm trying to imply that the due process may be used as a justification for an extension. I'm not personally convinced it does so, not even sufficiently to ward off a charge of treason leveled against Trump on his first day in office.
Re: (Score:1)
All interested parties had the time and ability to hire the best lawyers they could and fully participate in the legal process. They did and it is over. Either their arguments or their money was unpersuasive.
Oblivious, you are. (Score:1)
The President of the United States of America (POTUS) is entirely the central focus, and on whether he has the authority, and diplomatic urgency, to issue leniency towards an international company, or shall it be established here and now that it was done by ove
Re: (Score:2)
The law in question grants the President the ability to delay inactment by up to 90 days, after going into enforcement 180 days after the law was signed by Biden. The law is being followed. They already had 6 months and fucked around. Now they get 2 more months I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can be charged with treason right now. The US is not at war.
The Constitution defines treason explicitly, as levying war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Constitutional scholars generally agree that an "enemy" in this context is a party you're formally at war against.
Re: (Score:2)
Due process like the Supreme Court saying that forced divestiture or shutdown is legal in a 9-0 decision?
That kind of due process?
They had the entire time Congress was working on the bill. They had the time to get their shit in order when the bill passed the House. They had time to get their shit in order when it passed the Senate. And then they had time to get their shit in order after Biden signed it.
They actively refused offers. How much more "due process" do you figure they're due when this has been
Re: (Score:2)
The impact is the same, but the executive branch doesn't have the constitutional power to repeal or pausing the ban, but they can ignore it.
Do they though? I read some extensive analysis on this beforehand and the consensus legal opinion seemed to be that the delay of a ban can only come prior to it going into effect.
i.e.: Congress signs law, then you have the following options:
President Vetos - law doesn't go into effect.
President does nothing - law goes into effect on the day listed in legislation
President delays before law is in effect - delay is valid and still within the power of the executive branch.
President delays after law is in effect
So its treason, then. (Score:1)
The disorder of not knowing whether a law is in effect or not in effect, and the potential liability either way is disorder amounting to treason of the oath of office.
Re: (Score:1)
It may be grounds for impeachment, but it isn't treason. The US Constitution defines treason as
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't agree with the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Per my post above, nobody can be charged with treason right now, because the US is not at war with anyone.
I'm not sure anymore what the remedy is for a president who ignores laws. But it isn't a charge of treason.
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS granted Trump immunity last year. How far that goes is yet to be determined, but I'm not holding out hope.
As for impeachment, Trump was already impeached twice, and escaped conviction in the Senate, for acts arguably worse than ignoring laws. It's next to impossible to remove a president from office via the impeachment process, especially when his party is in power in both houses and fears him.
That's why I say: I no longer know what the remedy is.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well because YOU say so, let's just disregard the Constitution then.
I'll bet you would scream bloody murder if Trump's goons used the same line of thinking and justification for their bullshit. Oh wait, they do.
Re: Trump's not pausing the ban (Score:2)
I mean, it's doubtful it would even make it onto a lower court's docket by the time the 75 days is up even were a lawsuit filed today.
Re: (Score:2)
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Anyone who doesn't comport with the law is risking being prosecuted by the next administration. The law stipulates a five year statute of limitations which means that the following administration would have the option of retroactively prosecuting anyone who doesn't comply now.
This is, presumably, why Google and Apple are still keeping the app from their app stores. The penalty for not complying is quite severe ($5000/infraction) and no responsible company is going to want to risk that without an
Re: (Score:2)
Success. Misinterpreted or ignored by 90% of the 'users' of that stupid "service" who are now feeling like he's Elvis. As long as it makes him look good to himself (and/or look good to others who then make him look good to himself), the actual root of the issue is completely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that AppStores will ignore the law since there is a 5 year tail built into the law which means that they could be prosecuted by the next administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump's not pausing the ban (Score:5, Interesting)
You must have lived in a different reality.
The one that actually exist saw donold try to subvert the election in several ways, including trying to start an armed riot.
He failed because of inertia, and this time he has a better plan.
Not him actually, but the people behind him.
And we saw the first baby steps yesterday - over 9000 executive orders, most of them glaringly illegal.
We also saw the people behind donold heil-ing the sieg openly.
Sounds like a win for democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Not him actually, but the people behind him.
And we saw the first baby steps yesterday - over 9000 executive orders, most of them glaringly illegal.
Imperial presidency, where Congress is marginalized through presidential rule by fiat. Congress should just accept the inevitable right away and rename it self to: "The State Duma [wikipedia.org]"
Re: (Score:2)
And present that official rubber stamp with the gilded handle to Elona, for safekeeping of course.
Re: (Score:3)
over 9000 executive orders,
That brings up a good point. I don't want to hear republicans complain about executive orders ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, and this is something neither political party in the US seems to get, or other political parties elsewhere for that matter, the political pendulum routinely ticks back and forth. Sooner or later (possibly within just two years, quite probably within four), the US is going to get some combination of a Democrat controlled Congress/Senate/White House, at which point all the new powers and precedents the current Republican regime has created and set for those branches, will transfer ov
Re: (Score:1)
If you type "donold" over 9000 times maybe you will start to have a point!
Or not. Most of us lived through this timeline's 2020, where Democrats were happy to support looting and rioting in order to make Donald Trump look bad and push the American public to vote for the basement vegetable. Your side is always quick to ignore the cultural background that led up to the January 6th riot, and to lie about what Donald Trump said and did both leading to to that day and on that day.
Re: (Score:3)
The background that lead to the attempted coup on Jan 6 is the disregard for law and order of the former president, the civic ignorance of his followers, the delusion of the conservatives that they are entitled to power, the republican culture of adherence to falsehood that started even before tricky dick, and the inability to accept a defeat.
And yes, the "king that has returned" is indeed uneducated, stupid, lazy and old.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, they only thought they have a license from that convicted felon to overturn the result of a national election and hang those who opposed it. exemplary citizens of a democratic country, really. Just like the partei genossen of a movement from the 1930s, characterized by its brown shirt and a "roman salute". just like the one their chieftain performed on stage yesterday.
you nazis are really not good at mimicry.
Re:Trump's not pausing the ban (Score:4, Insightful)
he didn't do 9000 of anything
Yes, AC, indeed, you're right and he didn't sign any executive orders yesterday. Not even one.
https://www.newsweek.com/donal... [newsweek.com]
trump - highest approval
Not really. Trump barely won an election that the democrats left him to win.
And his approval is quite low for an incoming president.
https://projects.fivethirtyeig... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Keep lying, you've got nothing else going for you.
And, btw, the meme is "over 9000", not 9000.
Re: (Score:2)
And his approval is quite low for an incoming president.
To be fair, he's not really an incoming president in the conventional sense. He's more like a second-term president in that people have already seen him in "action" and formed opinions based on his track record. Who knows precisely how the intervening four years would tend to affect his approval.
The only precedent is, of course, Grover Cleveland, and I doubt his approval ratings were established by a methodology that's similar enough to ours for the numbers to be directly comparable.
Re: (Score:3)
He even brazenly lied in them, such as his EO saying that flags shouldn't be at half-mast for his inauguration due to the death of Jimmy Carter: "In any event, because of the death of President Jimmy Carter, the Flag may, for the first time ever during an Inauguration of a future President, be at half mast," Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this month. "Nobody wants to see this, and no American can be happy about it" - what a precious snowflake.
Flags were at half mast when Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 d
Re: (Score:3)
This time around, sadly, there is potential for a total collapse.
At least we have seen better times.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you're gonna be really disappointed when Trump does absolutely nothing meaningful about those social war issues you're so concerned about, while simultaneously failing to reduce the price of groceries. He will, however, happily sell you some meme coins.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're gonna be really disappointed when Trump does absolutely nothing meaningful about those social war issues you're so concerned about, while simultaneously failing to reduce the price of groceries. He will, however, happily sell you some meme coins.
Wow, history does repeat itself. Look at that.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an investigation and the results were published by the last Justice Dept. And the prosecution was started. It didn't complete due to the Supreme Court being stupid enough to make him a king and the current Justice Dept. being another fraudulent el Bunko operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest, 77 million American voters didn't hold Trump accountable. There's only so much blame you can place on our legal institutions when democracy willingly produced this result.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only so much blame you can place on our legal institutions when democracy willingly produced this result.
And now we're at the beginning of the end of the United States.
because its important making America great again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Priorities!
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I went and bought eggs yesterday. Still expensive AF.
I thought that was something he was going to take care of on "day 1" like every other damn thing?
WHAT ABOUT MAH EGGS!??!!
Re: (Score:2)
> Have you ended the war in Ukraine yet?
He said that would take a week.
No, he said he could do it in one day. He said it repeatedly. [apnews.com]
The law ... (Score:2)
It remains unclear whether Trump can legally pause the ban. It's also unclear how he plans to enforce a 50 percent "joint venture" ownership with the company, a move he announced on Sunday.
Trump is the God Emperor, his word is law.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for the check to clear (Score:2)
In the meantime, censorship on TikTok has already started [msn.com]. There are certain words and phrases you can no longer use and searching for them brings back no results.
All part of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? Trump may very well be trying to profit from this issue. But he can't just remove the ban-or-sell law. That was passed by a previous Congress with bipartisan votes, signed into law by the previous POTUS, and affirmed by all nine SCOTUS justices.
The only way to remove the ban-or-sell law would be to pass a new law. POTUS can't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean he's not going to blow smoke up their ass and try to grift a few million dollars out of them. Just go buy one of his newly minted shitcoins and wait for him to rugpull his 80% stake.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Trump could say to TikTok: "I can make the ban go away if you buy [X amount] $TRUMP." But how does he deliver? He can't un-make laws. That would require Congress to pass a new law that undoes the earlier one.
Sure, both houses in Congress are his bitch right now. Quite likely they'll do whatever he says. But it's not guaranteed.
Except, of course... (Score:2)
It can't, legally. Lots of headlines like this giving him support tho.
Now whoâ(TM)s chummy with China? (Score:2)
Trumpâ(TM)s who! Just like Sleepy Joe.
Rule of law... (Score:2)
We miss ye!
Re: Much law and order in the US (Score:4, Funny)
Just say no to vertical videos.
Re: Much law and order in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Cannot. Those Nazi salutes look much better in a vertical video.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really need gigantic widescreen Reifenstahl productions to properly be captured in their glory.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it was. Twice. One to the "aryan nation", once to the God-emperor.
Don't teach me what a Nazi salute is, please, I've seen plenty of them to recognize one.
Re: Much law and order in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you propagating this misinformation? It was not a Nazi salute. He said he was giving his heart to the crowd and extended his arm saying that. This is like saying baseball has a nazi salute because players extend their arm after throwing the ball.
That's almost as believable as Phil Anselmo saying he was talking about white wine when he gave the Nazi salute to a crowd and screamed White Power. Elon's a bit of a bumbler from time to time, but he's mostly intelligent enough to know what a Nazi salute looks like. And most humans are smart enough not to pull a Nazi salute "accidentally." Ozzy Osborne used to end every show by giving his heart to the crowd. He would hold his hand straight up above his head before opening it specifically to not look like a Nazi salute. If someone as coked out and addled as Ozzy Osborne can figure that out, so can someone claiming to be as smart as Elon Musk claims to be.
Re: (Score:3)
For those who want to make up their own mind - Nazi salute from someone who keeps showing favor to the far right, or rather absurd "giving his heart" gesture, the video is here together with NBC's attempts to cover it up: https://bsky.app/profile/bubba... [bsky.app]
Re: (Score:3)
What substance precisely?
elona the nazi trying to take credit for something that the Biden administration proposed a year ago? LOL.
elona the nazi supporting bibi, the guy who waged a war to save himself from the legal consequences of his corruption?
What does this have with elona doing a full goebbels on stage?
Re: (Score:2)
Deep state are the code words to complain that the president doesn't have dictatorial powers. They're happy that a deep state blocks Biden and Obama from exercising total power, but then become angry that their own guy can't just sneeze and make the tides recede.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the courts in a Nazi state are totally independent and free. Happened in all of them.
Re:Much law and order in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
All the Trump administration is doing is strategically failing to enforce a law, which is no different than what the Obama administration did with DACA (for example). DACA set a horrible precedent for future Presidential administrations.
Re:Much law and order in the US (Score:4, Informative)
All the Trump administration is doing is strategically failing to enforce a law
It's actually not that at all. The law congress passed specifically allows for a single extension of the deadline by the president. Trump evoked that provision in the law. That is a drastically different thing than ignoring a law and instructing attorney generals and the like to not enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's all he's doing. "Say, that's a nice social media network you have there. Would be a real shame if something were to happen to it..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forget the Federalist Society which is devoted to seeing as many Fascists in the courts as they can cram. These judges do not care one whit about the Constitution or the American People.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the courts will figure out if there's been some executive overreach.
The courts granted him that overreach. https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
"... if the system is broken then maybe someone should have pointed out such a flaw long ago...."
Umm yea they did. The first president of the US actually tried to tell us.
" However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines whic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you're cisgender, straight, white, Christian, male, can afford health insurance, and aren't reliant upon TikTok for earning a living, America is the bee's knees.
Yeah life is so terrible for everyone else in the US that Trump is doing them a favor keeping them out at the border. /sarcasm. if that was even slightly the case so many people wouldn't be trying to get in, the opposite would be the case the US would be trying to keep them in. Sure there are issues like being called by the right pronoun, or not having men call you pretty when you don't want them to, but if they are concerns then you don't have any real problems.
People in the west have it pretty dam good, n
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is that Trump is the world in his imagination. The grifters in his orbit know that which is why they treat him like a sun god, flattering and appeasing him to get him to pass any old shit. Sooner or later he'll be dead and even someone like JD Vance would be preferable to this monster.
Re: (Score:2)
nice bubble your in, where your correct and everyone else is wrong.
If you're wrong about how apostrophes work, then what else are you wrong about, Ivan?
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't. He should enforce the law.
He's going to do nothing over the next 75 days and TikTok will be effectively banned anyway, though some TikTok users may see him in a more-favorable light.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't. He should enforce the law.
The entire TikTok ban has been a textbook example of how legislation has gone horribly wrong in this country.
The idea began as an EO by Trump during his first term, which Biden then undid with his own EO. Then it returned as a bill in Congress and ultimately passed as a rider attached to a foreign aid spending bill, and was signed into law by former president Biden. Under any reasonable interpretation of the 1A, deplatforming 170 million Americans should've been considered unconstitutional, but SCOTUS con
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing new.
Confusion of the law... (Score:1)
My argument is that the level of confusion at this point has been raised to that of an impeachable offense, equal in severity of treason. My argument is that setting a snare of uncertainty regarding the law of the land is a "hostile act" against the people and therefore against the United States of America. A betrayal of the trus
Re: (Score:2)
Powercntrl, I think you and I agree on many issues. But obviously not this one.
The law required TikTok to cease operations or sell itself to a US entity. If the latter happens, then no biggie. If the former happens, then 170 million users will be deplatformed from TikTok, but there are other platforms. Damn inconvenient to be sure, but not an apocalyptic assault on 1A.
Whatever concerns you may have for the law's insult to 1A, people in both political parties in both houses, and all nine SCOTUS justices, fel
Re: (Score:2)
... there are other platforms. Damn inconvenient to be sure, but not an apocalyptic assault on 1A.
Right-wingers being deplatformed from Twitter was apparently a big enough issue that Musk spent $44 billion just so he could take the reins of that platform. Clearly, being able to reach your intended audience has a significant value attached to it.
Whatever concerns you may have for the law's insult to 1A, people in both political parties in both houses, and all nine SCOTUS justices, felt the national security issue overrode that.
Trump's initial EO was likely because he initially assumed TikTok to be full of liberals (and a handful of TikTok's users were using the platform to prank his rallies), not because it represented a genuine national security threat.
The bill passed in Congress as
Re: Lying Douchebag (Score:2)
The legislation gives a very specific method to extend the deadline, conditional on the president making a report to congress that details how there has been substantive progress on divestiture. An executive order isn't that, and there is no divesiture progress anyone knows of.
Non enforcement of laws passed by congress is becoming a pretty pernicious issue with the executive, and given how explicit this law is Trumps actions are one of the most egregious attempts to flout the law yet. At least with Obama an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm completely agreed t
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that the same day he's done this, he just got done taking an oath to take care to uphold the laws of the United States.
He couldn't even go a few hours before breaking his oath.