Congress

Trump’s TikTok Dance Is a Constitutional Farce

Published

1 year ago

September 19, 2025

In January, just days before the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Congress’ ban on TikTok and Donald Trump returned to the White House, Sen. Tom Cotton took to the Senate floor and warned the country that the “lethal algorithm” in the Beijing-based social media company’s app “has cost the lives of many American kids.” “Let me be crystal clear,” the Arkansas Republican said. “There will be no extensions, no concessions and no compromises for TikTok.”

Eight months later, the Trump administration has just given TikTok and the Chinese government another extension, another concession and another compromise. On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order providing a fourth “enforcement delay” of Congress’ ban — now extending until December 16.

It’s just the latest development in a saga that served as an early warning for what was to come in the second Trump term: a president eager to steamroll Capitol Hill and a GOP-controlled Congress happy to oblige him. When it comes to Trump’s handling of the TikTok ban, it has, at best, scrambled the constitutional order, and, at worst, seen the administration openly flout a law passed by the American public’s elected representatives in order to advance the political, personal and financial interests of Trump and his allies.

On Friday, Trump is set to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping to agree to the terms of a proposed deal that is supposed to finally end the TikTok drama and bring all parties into compliance with the law. The deal reportedly involves some sort of sale to a consortium of investors that may include Trump allies and billionaires like Larry Ellison and Marc Andreessen, though the structure and legality of the agreement remain unclear. Indeed, whatever happens Friday is not likely to end the matter.

The law passed by Congress and signed into law under Joe Biden requires TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company ByteDance to divest at least 80 percent of its financial stake in the company and also precludes “any cooperation” concerning “the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.” Earlier this week, however, a Chinese cybersecurity official said that the framework includes “licensing the [TikTok] algorithm and other intellectual property rights.” Depending on the specifics, that licensing arrangement, with its “lethal algorithm” intact, could run afoul of the law. What then?

Some Republican China hawks on Capitol Hill insisted this week that they will closely scrutinize the deal when the terms become clearer, but there has been almost no pushback from Republicans over Trump’s decision to unilaterally ignore the TikTok ban all year — and far less from Democrats than one might have expected.

Cotton did not respond to a request for comment about Trump’s continuing refusal to enforce the law, despite being a once-voluble critic of TikTok and the Chinese government’s control of the app and arguing that the app has already “cost the lives of many American kids.”

A representative for Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri told me that if I wanted to hear from him on the matter, I was free to track him down in the Capitol. Hawley previously defended the ban and warned of the dangers of TikTok in January, shortly before Trump returned to office and announced that the administration would simply ignore it. “It’s not just a national security threat,” Hawley said of TikTok at the time. “It’s a personal security threat.”

Trump himself once shared these concerns. In 2020, he signed an executive order declaring that TikTok’s data collection “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

That, of course, was before Trump courted a billionaire donor with a stake in TikTok and before Trump decided that TikTok had helped him win his 2024 reelection bid. Last month, the White House created an official TikTok account — a further sign, if one was needed, of the Trump administration’s ongoing disregard for the ban passed by Congress.

Meanwhile, Trump has benefited from an apparent lack of coordination and urgency on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for the ban but later opposed immediate implementation of the law in January and endorsed a legislative extension before the law went into effect. That did not pass, but Trump has kept TikTok alive anyway without apparent legal authority to do so. Schumer did not respond to a request for comment on Trump’s series of TikTok executive orders this year.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, for his part, opposed the TikTok ban in the first place but said that he is waiting to see more about the deal before rendering a final opinion.

“I’m working to make sure this deal does not lead to the censorship of free speech and will protect the millions of content creators who rely on TikTok,” he told Blue Light News Magazine.

The whole situation has no apparent precedent in the annals of American law.

Sure, there are lots of laws on the books, and the federal government cannot enforce them all. That is why federal law enforcement relies heavily on priority-setting and careful attention to the opportunity costs of pursuing some crimes over others.

The Trump administration has made its agenda clear, and the ramifications have not been surprising. If, for example, you insist that federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors focus almost entirely on illegal immigration, then you are going to have fewer investigations and prosecutions for white-collar crime and financial fraud — which is exactly what is happening now.

In February, Trump announced that he was “pausing” enforcement of the foreign anti-bribery statute — a law that he notoriously hates — and in June, the Justice Department issued a memo that dramatically narrowed the circumstances under which the administration would enforce the law. In less overt fashion, the Justice Department has also significantly de-prioritized public corruption investigations, which Trump also hates.

Reasonable minds can often disagree about which federal laws merit the Justice Department’s focus at any given point in time, but the TikTok ban stands apart both for its public and political salience, as well as its simplicity.

The law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and was unanimously affirmed on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court. In the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk, the country is also now engaged in a national, rolling public debate about the polarizing and radicalizing dangers of social media, particularly on America’s youth.

The TikTok ban is also not subtle or particularly complicated to implement. It states that the Justice Department “shall conduct investigations related to potential violations” of the ban by tech companies, including third-party service providers, and that the Justice Department “shall pursue enforcement” if a violation has occurred. The fines that are supposed to apply are massive, potentially adding up to billions of dollars.

Instead of abiding by this provision, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote letters to Apple, Google and other tech companies earlier this year informing them that she was effectively immunizing them for any violations of the law. She argued that enforcing the ban would “interfere with the execution of the President’s constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States.”

Left unsaid was how this decision would comply with the president’s constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” how it could be squared with Congress’ constitutional lawmaking authority, or why we should all be okay with the administration unilaterally disregarding the American public’s interest in having the executive branch enforce the laws passed by their elected representatives.

The TikTok ban may or may not be good on the merits. You may hate it or you may love it, but it is the law of the land — and it has been all year.

If the ban was a bad idea, then Congress could have repealed the law or passed a legislative extension, but neither of those things has happened. Instead, pretty much every politician in Washington — on both sides of the aisle — has effectively decided that the law can be flagrantly ignored because of TikTok’s popularity and the potential electoral fallout that could result from antagonizing the app’s relatively young user base.

This is not how laws are supposed to work in this country.

Congress is supposed to pass them, and the president is supposed to enforce them. There are no constitutional carve-outs for popular social media apps or for companies that helped you win your election.

Over the last eight months, the Trump administration has run roughshod over Congress and its constitutional prerogatives. Trump’s decision to ignore the TikTok ban on his first day in office may seem minor in the grand scheme of things, but it foreshadowed a series of far more aggressive moves to usurp much of lawmakers’ constitutional authority: dismantling congressionally-created agencies, redirecting congressionally appropriated funds and implementing a massive tax hike on the American public in the form of Trump’s chaotic tariff regime.

The vast majority of this was made possible by congressional Republicans, who have largely turned a blind eye to all of Trump’s gambits, and by the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, who have handed Trump a series of victories this year in his wide-ranging efforts to both unilaterally slash the federal government while dramatically expanding the powers of the presidency.

The acquiescence to Trump’s TikTok reprieve this year has been a far more bipartisan affair, but it has been a constitutional farce all the same, and it is not over yet.

Congress

Sanders, AOC, Merkley propose bill to ban Flock cameras

Published

4 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday released text of legislation intended to ban the use of Flock surveillance cameras and other license plate readers.

Flock has faced severe public backlash against the surveillance technology following reports that police officers misused the technology to track women, and it has the largest network of license plate readers across the U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) hosted a hearing last month probing its potential misuses, although the company’s CEO Garrett Langley did not appear.

The latest bill, unveiled Friday and named the Ban Flock Act, would bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers or accessing data from the technology and prevent federal grants from funding states and local governments that use automated license plate readers.

“At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” Sanders, who has positioned himself as a leading progressive voice on AI technology, said in a statement. “We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

Ocasio-Cortez similarly condemned the surveillance capabilities of the technology and said the bill would “enforce our constitutional right to privacy and protect Americans from both corporate and government surveillance.”

“No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips,” Merkley added.

Republicans have introduced similar efforts to regulate license plate readers, such as Hawley’s Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would require audits and limits on unauthorized searches.

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

7 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

10 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”