[blackeyeblitzar]

It says the conditions of the extension must be certified to Congress. That means the deal is identified, has been significantly executed, and legally binding. I doubt Trump has any of that, which is probably why he’s resorting to an executive order.

More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

He's not resorting to an executive order to ignore the law. He's using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban, given that he certifies that certain conditions have been met.

The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators.

What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.

[JumpCrisscross]

> using the loophole in the law that allows him to grant a 1-time 90 day lift of the ban

It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Sure, the loophole is a part of the law, as I (and others) stated. Congress passed the law, which included a simple and easy way for a president to suspend it once of 90 day, with weak and unenforceable requirements to invoke it. Given that this is an unusual clause to have in a law, I feel comfortable calling it a loophole.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the loophole is a part of the law

That's not a loophole. It was intentionally designed the way it's been written to be used the way Trump is using it--to give the President leverage and the ability to save face for Beijing.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You're saying it is not possible to build a loophole into a law.

I'm saying that it is.

[blackeyeblitzar]

Then why does it need an executive order? And doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

[JumpCrisscross]

> why does it need an executive order?

It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump.

> doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

Not to my knowledge.