> Although Trump could choose to not enforce the law

Ah, clever to leave it up for bribes from ByteDance.

> The nation’s highest court said in the opinion that while “data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age,” the sheer size of TikTok and its “susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects” poses a national security concern

What is the point of these "rules and regulations" and "the nation's highest court" when the president could decide just not to enforce them?

>> What is the point of these "rules and regulations" and "the nation's highest court" when the president could decide just not to enforce them?

What is the point of freedom of speech and freedom of press when we can just shut down any apps not touting the mono-party lines?

people in the us finally found a real public square to talk, and it is being shut down against the spirit of everything the US purports to stand for.

Where was this line of thinking when it was Obama ordering the DEA to not enforce marijuana laws? Where is this line of thinking when it's a city that chooses not to enforce dog breed restrictions?

The enforcement of law being separate from the passage of law is a key plank in a functioning democracy, it's one of the safety valves against tyranny.

The president is in charge of executing the law. It’s in our system of checks and balances. I’m choosing to speak at an extremely general level, of course, but that is the answer to your question.

> What is the point of these "rules and regulations" and "the nation's highest court" when the president could decide just not to enforce them?

Good question actually.

This is largely a non-starter, though? He can't choose to have it not be a law, he could choose to selectively enforce it. Where selective enforcement is assumed to be no enforcement from your post. But he could, as easily, use it to punish any company he doesn't like that is somehow in breach of it.

And this ultimately puts it in a place where you have to assume that it will be enforced against you. Right?

This isn't a new problem.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

> Ah, clever to leave it up for bribes from ByteDance.

I agree. And the bribery already started when the Trump campaign found itself doing very well on engagement in TikTok. The CCP had already started the bribery before the election in a bid to maintain influence over the US while halting American influence in China.

The Biden administration I believe said they won't enforce the law starting Sunday, leaving it to the incoming administration to enforce. It'll be wildly popular for Trump to save TikTok, so I expect he'll do it without forcing a sale.

From what I've heard, not enforcing the ban doesn't really work. Apple/Google would be liable if the law does get enforced. So unless they've gone completely insane and want to give Trump a threat to wield over them for his whole term, they'll surely act as if it's being enforced. The term on the law is 5 years too, so even if they do have perfect trust in Trump never changing his mind, they have to worry about the next President deciding to enforce it too.

> Ah, clever to leave it up for bribes from ByteDance.

News story from yesterday, "TikTok CEO expected to attend Trump inauguration as ban looms":

* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/...