[somenameforme]

Not actions, but legally binding statements of intent. If Trump offered a binding statement to the heads of all major players that he intends to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for these companies to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.

[comp_throw7]

There is no mechanism by which Trump can offer a statement of intent that legally binds him to following that specific course of action after he becomes president.

[fc417fc802]

Any violation and associated fine would proceed though court. I assume such a statement of intent would have meaning there.

[kelnos]

That's not how the law works, though. Let's say Trump goes back on his word and doesn't sign this executive order, and then ByteDance (etc.) get into legal trouble. If they can convince a judge/jury that they had a strong reason to believe that they'd be acting within the law as they believe it would have been executed by the incoming Trump administration, that could be a persuasive defense.

That doesn't mean TikTok would be able to continue operating, but it could mean the parties involved wouldn't have to suffer penalties for their operation up to that point (past the ban date). But maybe it wouldn't work, and a judge/jury would throw the book at them. We just don't know until and unless it goes to court.

[somenameforme]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue? Obviously you understand that that if you create a contract stating that you agree to do [x] in the future, then you are indeed legally bound to that agreement.

If you're arguing that qualified immunity would enable Trump to break the contract if he so chose without consequence, then that is probably true, but I see no reason that would imperil the companies having a rock solid defense against enforcement penalties in the interim period.

[comp_throw7]

Such a contract - where someone promises to use their (future) presidential powers in exchange for some consideration from the other party - would be illegal and unenforceable, because someone paying the president to exercise executive powers to their benefit is literally just bribery.

[anon7000]

In what universe does this apply to the president? If the president promises a company to do X, it’s not a contract. I’m not even sure the president is allowed to make a contract with a private entity to give them a political favor.

[somenameforme]

There is no law or precedent to prohibit someone from engaging in contracts because of holding public office. In fact there is even an ongoing movement to try to get more politicians to do exactly this so that campaign promises would be more likely to be executed. Again qualified immunity would probably make these contracts impossible to enforce against a politician, but in this case the agreement would work as a defense if for some reason Oracle et al faced legal threats or fines for continuing to work with TikTok.

[Kubuxu]

You can create contract, but contracts require consideration, and I don’t see how you do consideration in a case like this without it being a bribery.

[somenameforme]

Trump => Agrees to avoid interim enforcement against companies facilitating the operation of TikTok + legally clarify matters when he gets into office.

Companies => Agree to temporarily facilitate the operation of TikTok until matters are further clarified.

I don't see anything particularly controversial here.