The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has refrained from enforcing the TikTok ban, citing concerns that such enforcement would interfere with the President’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs. This decision emerged following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that unveiled correspondence between the DOJ and major technology companies, including Apple.
Background on the TikTok Ban
In April 2024, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) was enacted under President Joe Biden’s administration. This legislation mandated that ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, divest its U.S. operations by January 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban. The law aimed to address national security concerns related to data collection practices and potential foreign influence.
ByteDance challenged the constitutionality of PAFACA, arguing that it violated First Amendment rights. However, on January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, affirming that the divestiture requirement was a lawful measure to protect national security interests.
Executive Actions and Delays
Upon his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order delaying the enforcement of PAFACA for 75 days, extending the deadline to April 5, 2025. This extension was intended to provide time for a potential sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations to American entities. Subsequent executive orders further extended the deadline, with the most recent extension pushing the date to September 17, 2025.
DOJ’s Position on Enforcement
The DOJ’s decision not to enforce the TikTok ban is grounded in a broad interpretation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President authority over foreign affairs. The DOJ contends that enforcing PAFACA would interfere with the President’s ability to manage international relations.
This stance was detailed in letters from Attorney General Bondi to major tech companies. A key excerpt from these letters states:
> The Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against Apple Inc. for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act. This is derived from the Attorney General’s plenary authority over all litigation, civil and criminal, to which the United States, its agencies, or departments, are parties, as well as the Attorney General’s authority to enter settlements limiting the future exercise of executive branch discretion.
This excerpt underscores the DOJ’s position that enforcing the ban would impede the President’s constitutional prerogatives in foreign policy.
Implications for Tech Companies
The DOJ’s letters provided assurances to companies like Apple and Google, indicating that they would not face legal repercussions for continuing to host TikTok on their platforms during the extended periods. This assurance led to the restoration of TikTok on app stores, despite the existing legal framework under PAFACA.
Ongoing Developments
As the extended deadline approaches, the future of TikTok in the U.S. remains uncertain. Negotiations for the sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations are ongoing, with potential buyers and the U.S. government seeking a resolution that addresses national security concerns while maintaining the app’s availability to American users.
The situation continues to evolve, reflecting the complex interplay between legislative actions, executive authority, corporate interests, and international relations.
