[somenameforme]

If you mean because they used the term "President Trump", that honorific is for life. See, for instance, the recent passing of President Carter for a million examples. If you mean because he couldn't have executed legal actions yet - he could have offered private and legally binding statements to all the major players - Oracle, Apple, and Google.

[magicalist]

> he could have offered private and legally binding statements

No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but President elects certainly can't.

[somenameforme]

I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.

[JumpCrisscross]

> A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office

Would not be legally binding. The President cannot unilaterally bind the U.S., and he is free to make and break statements of intent.

[anon7000]

Presidents are allowed to offer legally binding political favors in private?

[somenameforme]

Calling it a political favor is quite silly. He stated he was likely overturn it for months now, but the public indirect phrasing was probably not sufficient for the involved actors to feel was sufficient to act on, a private statement of definitive intent would be.