> What part of this being a bad execution of the idea is confusing or contradictory?

And even then, "bad idea" is what you get after the extreme charity of assuming the Trump administration is fundamentally lawful.

It's even worse if you believe they're bunch of crooks that will use the "special exception" clause to extort/bribe companies into corrupt favors. For example, granting access to snoop without a court-order, biasing their moderation policies, silencing voices or messages the administration finds inconvenient, etc.

I suspect that this actually is something they think is a "good idea", for their particular idea of "good". It'll get used for "deals" like everything else, but they don't need to introduce new pretexts just for that.

("They" being the Trump admin in general, since I'm not at all sure who in that morass is actually in charge.)