Stop executive overreach and enforce the rule of law.

Donald Trump has decided to disregard an act of Congress. To justify that disregard, his administration is asserting a shockingly broad authority that legal scholars dub the "dispensing power." Once claimed by absolute monarchs, it is the power, in effect, to declare on a case-by-case basis that certain duly enacted laws won't apply to the king's friends and allies (in other words, they will be dispensed with) - just because the king says so. Two days earlier, the Supreme Court upheld a law, enacted during the Biden administration, requiring TikTok's Chinese parent firm to either sell the company to an American buyer or effectively shutter it. The law also threatened app stores and hosting providers that continued serving TikTok past the sale deadline with stiff penalties. The platform even went dark for a few hours, but Trump announced he would halt enforcement of the law once he took office, to allow more time for a sale to be negotiated. In April, he granted a second extension, and in June he announced a third, to last 90 days. As legal observers quickly noted, all this flew in the face of the unambiguous text of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA). The statute empowers the president to grant a “1-time extension of not more than 90 days” — not to decline to enforce the law indefinitely at his own discretion — and requires him to provide a certification to Congress that the divestment process is underway if such an extension is provided. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t other technology companies be fearful of incurring legal liability by continuing to do business with TikTok? Apparently not, because we’ve now learned that Attorney General Pam Bondi reassured those companies, in a series of letters made public via the Freedom of Information Act, that the president was exercising an inherent presidential authority, not only to set aside the TikTok law, but also to decree for all time — purportedly binding even future administrations — that businesses clearly violating the law weren’t really violating it after all. It can’t be overestimated what an extraordinary claim this is. Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration, called it “an astounding assertion of executive power — maybe the broadest I have ever seen any president or Justice Department make, ever, in any context — and that is saying something.” Reassert Congressional powers and stop executive overreach for this issue and many more!