Trump's Defiance of TikTok Ban Prompted Immunity Promises to 10 Tech Companies
Under orders from President Donald Trump, Bondi has refused to enforce a law passed by Congress last year that classifies TikTok as a national security risk because of its ties to China and bars companies from distributing the app to US consumers.
TikTok can dodge the ban by reducing the ownership Chinese entities have in its US operations, and Trump has described those negotiations as ongoing. But constitutional experts have questioned the legality of executive orders by Trump that delay enforcement of the ban as those sales talks drag out.
Early this year, TikTok disappeared from the US app stores of Apple and Google after the ban went into effect. But despite the law still being on the books, TikTok returned to the stores after just a 26-day hiatus. Several media outlets reported at the time that Bondi had written to Apple and Google promising they would not face prosecution. But the letters had not been publicly disclosed until Thursday.
Silicon Valley software engineer Tony Tan had sought the letters under the Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Justice initially claimed it did not have records matching Tan's request. He sued the department, which ended up releasing several letters to him on Thursday.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The disclosures show the first letters were dated January 30 and sent to four companies—Microsoft, Google, Apple, and content delivery network provider Fastly. 'Google has committed no violation of the Act and Google has incurred no liability under the Act during the Covered Period,' then-acting attorney general James McHenry wrote. 'Google may continue to provide services to TikTok as contemplated by the Executive Order without violating the Act, and without incurring any legal liability.'
Bondi took over as attorney general in early February, and days later Google and Apple separately wrote to her, according to the released documents. In responses dated February 11, Bondi wrote that 'the Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against' the companies for violating the TikTok ban.
After Microsoft inquired, it also received on March 10 a letter 'irrevocably relinquishing any claims.' Similar language was included in letters dated March 10 to Amazon, data center company Digital Realty, and cell phone service giant T-Mobile.
In early April, Trump extended the negotiating window for a TikTok sale and further delayed enforcement of the ban. That led to a round of 10 letters on April 5, including to content delivery provider Akamai, cloud vendor Oracle, and TV maker LG. Among those letters, only the ones to Apple and Google mentioned the 'irrevocably relinquishing' vow. But three days later, Bondi sent a new version to Microsoft including the language.
Microsoft and the other nine companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Tan, who obtained the letters, last month filed a lawsuit against Google parent company Alphabet accusing it of withholding information about its decision to continue distributing TikTok on its Play store. (Google previously declined to comment to WIRED on the suit.) He worries that the promises from Bondi are non-binding, and that Trump or a future president could end up prosecuting tech companies that are currently supporting TikTok. Google could face billions of dollars in fines if found in violation of the ban.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea trade minister to leave for U.S. on Friday as tariff deadline looms
SEOUL (Reuters) -South Korea's Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo will leave for the United States on Friday for tariff talks, just days ahead of the July 9 deadline when U.S. tariffs could rise sharply. Yeo said he would consider requesting an extension of the reciprocal tariff pause, depending on the progress of negotiations with U.S. officials. South Korea has sought exemptions from U.S. President Donald Trump's punishing tariffs on imports of automobiles and steel products, as well as a 25% "reciprocal" levy on the Asian ally currently paused for negotiations. Washington is demanding better access to the agriculture and car sectors, and improved market access and non-discriminatory treatment in the digital sector, Yeo told a parliamentary hearing on Friday. "The government will respond flexibly by taking into account the level of the U.S. demands and domestic political security sensitivities," he said. Asked about whether South Korea could meet the July 9 deadline, Yeo said the substance of negotiations mattered more than the deadline. Yeo said he would ask the U.S. to take time and accelerate talks to reach a "win-win" deal.
Hamilton Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US expands militarized zones to 1/3 of southern border, stirring controversy
COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) — Orange no-entry signs posted by the U.S. military in English and Spanish dot the New Mexico desert, where a border wall cuts past onion fields and parched ranches with tufts of tall grass growing amidst wiry brush and yucca trees. The Army has posted thousands of the warnings in New Mexico and western Texas, declaring a 'restricted area by authority of the commander.' It's part of a major shift that has thrust the military into border enforcement with Mexico like never before. The move places long stretches of the border under the supervision of nearby military bases, empowering U.S. troops to detain people who enter the country illegally and sidestep a law prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. It is done under the authority of the national emergency on the border declared by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. U.S. authorities say the zones are needed to close gaps in border enforcement and help in the wider fight against human smuggling networks and brutal drug cartels. The militarization is being challenged in court, and has been criticized by civil rights advocates, humanitarian aid groups and outdoor enthusiasts who object to being blocked from public lands while troops have free rein. Abbey Carpenter, a leader of a search-and-rescue group for missing migrants, said public access is being denied across sweltering stretches of desert where migrant deaths have surged. 'Maybe there are more deaths, but we don't know,' she said. Military expansion Two militarized zones form a buffer along 230 miles (370 kilometers) of border, from Fort Hancock, Texas, through El Paso and westward across vast New Mexico ranchlands. The Defense Department added an additional 250-mile (400-kilometer) zone last week in Texas' Rio Grande Valley and plans another near Yuma, Arizona. Combined, the zones will cover nearly one-third of the U.S. border with Mexico. They are patrolled by at least 7,600 members of the armed forces, vastly expanding the U.S. government presence on the border. Reaction to the military buffer has been mixed among residents of New Mexico's rural Luna County, where a strong culture of individual liberty is tempered by the desire to squelch networks bringing migrants and contraband across the border. 'We as a family have always been very supportive of the mission, and very supportive of border security,' said James Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer overseeing seasonal laborers as they filled giant plastic crates with onions, earning $22 per container. Military deployments under prior presidents put 'eyes and ears' on the border, Johnson said. This version is 'trying to give some teeth.' But some hunters and hikers fear they're being locked out of a rugged and cherished landscape. 'I don't want to go down there with my hunting rifle and all of a sudden somebody rolls up on me and says that I'm in a military zone,' said Ray Trejo, a coordinator for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation and a Luna County commissioner. 'I don't know if these folks have been taught to deescalate situations.' A former public school teacher of English as a second language, Trejo said military trespassing charges seem inhumane in an economy built on immigrant farm labor. 'If the Army, Border Patrol, law enforcement in general are detaining people for reasons of transporting, of human smuggling, I don't have a problem,' he said. 'But people are coming into our country to work, stepping now all of a sudden into a military zone, and they have no idea.' Nicole Wieman, an Army command spokesperson, said the Army is negotiating possible public access for recreation and hunting, and will honor private rights to grazing and mining. Increased punishment More than 1,400 migrants have been charged with trespassing on military territory, facing a possible 18-month prison sentence for a first offense. That's on top of an illegal entry charge that brings up to six months in custody. After that, most are turned over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for likely deportation. There have been no apparent arrests of U.S. citizens. At a federal courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico, on the banks of the Upper Rio Grande, migrants in drab county jail jumpsuits and chains filed before a magistrate judge on a recent weekday. A 29-year-old Guatemalan woman struggled to understand instructions through a Spanish interpreter as she pleaded guilty to illegal entry. A judge set aside military trespassing charges for lack of evidence, but sentenced her to two weeks in jail before being transferred for likely deportation. 'She sells pottery, she's a very simple woman with a sixth-grade education,' a public defense attorney told the judge. 'She told me she's going back and she's going to stay there.' Border crossings Border Patrol arrests along the southern border this year have dropped to the lowest level in six decades, including a 30% decrease in June from the prior month as attempted crossings dwindle. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a stark contrast with late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. The first militarized zones, introduced in April and May, extend west of El Paso past factories and cattle yards to partially encircle the New Mexico border village of Columbus, and its 1,450 residents. It was here that Mexican revolutionary forces led by Pancho Villa crossed into the U.S. in a deadly 1916 raid. These days, a port of entry at Columbus is where hundreds of children with U.S. citizenship cross daily from a bedroom community in Mexico to board public school buses and attend classes nearby. Columbus Mayor Philip Skinner, a Republican, says he's seen the occasional military vehicle but no evidence of disruption in an area where illegal crossings have been rare. 'We're kind of not tuned in to this national politics,' Skinner said. Oversight is divided between U.S. Army commands in Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The militarized zones sidestep the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil. Russell Johnson, a rancher and former Border Patrol agent, said he welcomes the new militarized zone where his ranch borders Mexico on land leased from the Bureau of Land Management. 'We have seen absolutely almost everything imaginable that can happen on the border, and most of it's bad,' he said, recalling off-road vehicle chases on his ranch and lifeless bodies recovered by Border Patrol. In late April, he said, five armored military vehicles spent several days at a gap in the border wall, where construction was suspended at the outset of the Biden presidency. But, he said, he hasn't seen much of the military in recent weeks. 'The only thing that's really changed is the little extra signage,' he said. 'We're not seeing the military presence out here like we kind of anticipated.' Court challenges Federal public defenders have challenged the military's new oversight of public land in New Mexico, seizing on the arrest of a Mexican man for trespassing through remote terrain to test the legal waters. They decried the designation of a new military zone without congressional authorization 'for the sole purpose of enabling military action on American soil' as 'a matter of staggering and unpreceded political significance.' A judge has not ruled on the issue. In the meantime, court challenges to trespassing charges in the militarized zone have met with a mixture of convictions and acquittals at trial. Ryan Ellison, the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico, won trespassing convictions in June against two immigrants who entered a militarized zone again after an initial warning. 'There's not going to be an issue as to whether or not they were on notice,' he told a recent news conference. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Rebecca Sheff says the federal government is testing a more punitive approach to border enforcement with the new military zones and worries it will be expanded border-wide. 'To the extent the federal government has aspirations to establish a much more hostile military presence along the border, this is a vehicle that they're pushing on to potentially do so. … And that's very concerning,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Democrats see Trump's big bill as key to their comeback. It may not be so easy.
Indeed, in political battlegrounds across Alaska and Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, Democrats have already begun to use Trump's bill to bludgeon their Republican rivals. Democrats are promising that the package — Trump's biggest domestic policy achievement to date — will be the defining issue of every major election between now and next fall's high-stakes midterms. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'One thing is abundantly clear: Republicans own this mess and it's an albatross around their necks heading into the midterms,' Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told The Associated Press. 'This is the least popular legislation in modern history, and the more voters learn about it, the more they hate it. That's a clear directive for Democrats -- we're going to make sure every single voter knows who is responsible.' Advertisement Even with early public opinion on their side, however, it's far from certain that the Republican budget bill will be the political winner Democrats hope. Advertisement The Democratic brand remains deeply unpopular, the party has no clear leader, its message is muddled and core elements of the Democratic base are frustrated and drifting. Some of the bill's changes won't take effect until after the 2026 midterms, so voters may not have felt the full impact by the time they vote. At the same time, it's unclear how many voters are paying attention to the Washington-based debate. The Democratic super PAC Priorities USA warned this week that Democrats must work harder if they want their message to break through the polarized media environment. 'We can't just assume that because we're angry that the voters that we need to communicate with are angry. Everyone needs to step up and realize the enormous challenge that's in front of us,' Executive Director Danielle Butterfield said. 'We're nowhere near a good starting place.' At its core, the bill's priority is $4.5 trillion in tax breaks enacted in Trump's first term that would expire if Congress failed to act, along with new ones. This includes allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay. The package includes $1.2 trillion in cutbacks to Medicaid and food stamps and a massive rollback of green energy investments. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade. Democrats in Congress were united against the bill, and even some Republicans expressed concerns. But ultimately, Trump persuaded the conservative holdouts to fall in line. Democrats' challenge on display Privately, some Democrats conceded that Republicans were smart to pass the bill on the eve of a holiday weekend when fewer voters would be paying attention. And as some Democrats in Washington predicted a fierce political backlash across America, the response was somewhat muted Thursday at a Democratic event in Iowa, barely 10 miles from the Iowa State Fairgrounds where Trump later drew thousands for an evening rally. Advertisement An audience of roughly 100 people listened as local Democratic officials railed against the legislation and called on voters to oust Republican Rep. Zach Nunn, the local congressman, for supporting it. Audience member Michael Rieck, 69, said Iowa Democrats left him a message about the rally, but when he went online to learn more, 'there was nothing.' 'I texted back to them that I didn't see any advertisement,' he said. 'They slowly corrected that. I'm still not impressed with what they did to advertise this event.' Rieck said he wants to see different factions of the party better coordinate their message. Meanwhile, progressive activists were moving through Minnesota in a big green bus as part of Fair Share America's 29-stop 'stop the billionaire giveaway' tour. The group is focused on Republican-led congressional districts where elected officials have largely stopped having in-person town halls with constituents. Fair Share Executive Director Kristen Crowell said the crowds, even some Trump supporters, have been receptive. Still, she acknowledged many people don't know what's in the bill. 'We know we're fighting upstream,' she said. 'But when people hear exactly what's in this bill, they're adamantly opposed. I mean, I can tell you, in 17 stops, I've not had one person come up to me and say, 'You are on the wrong side of this.'' What the polls say The GOP's bill is generally unpopular, according to polling conducted throughout the month of June, although some individual provisions are popular. Advertisement For example, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that majorities of U.S. adults support increasing the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on earnings from tips, and about half support work requirements for some adults who receive Medicaid. On the other hand, the poll found that majorities oppose reducing federal funding for food assistance to low-income families and spending about $45 billion to build and maintain migrant detention centers. The price tag could be a sticking point. About 6 in 10 U.S. adults in the poll said it was 'unacceptable' that the bill is expected to increase the U.S. national debt, currently at $36 trillion, by about $3 trillion over the next decade. But polling indicates that most Americans aren't paying attention to the nuances of the bill, either. The Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that only about one-third of U.S. adults have heard 'a great deal' or 'a good amount' about it. Democrats are planning a summer of organizing The Democratic National Committee and its allies plan an 'organizing summer' that will feature town halls, training and voter registration drives in at least 35 competitive congressional districts. The message will be focused heavily on Trump's bill. Democratic groups also are expected to unveil a new round of digital attack ads targeting vulnerable Republicans in the coming days. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, who leads the Democratic Governors Association, said her party must keep the bill's contents at the forefront of people's minds to ensure it's an issue in the 2026 midterm elections — and even the next presidential election in 2028. 'We'll just have to keep that on the radar,' she said. Meanwhile, progressive groups are planning a 'Family First' day of action for July 26 in all 50 states. They'll highlight vulnerable Americans hurt by the new Medicaid cuts and hold a 60-hour vigil at the U.S. Capitol. Advertisement 'Because people call Medicaid something different in every state, a lot of people didn't realize — until this very moment — that their health care was at stake,' said one of the Family First organizers, Ai-jen Poo, president of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. 'We have made a promise to each other and to future generations that there will be a safety net in place when we need it. And this is what's being ripped away. And people will not stand for it.' Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed.
