**Legal Dispute Concerning TikTok: Tony Tan’s Opposition to the Trump Administration’s Guarantees**
Tony Tan, a shareholder of Google, has recently garnered attention by acquiring and releasing correspondence from the Trump administration that assured technology firms, including Apple and Google, that they would not encounter legal repercussions for continuing to operate TikTok. These correspondences, dispatched during the last days of Trump’s presidency, effectively urged companies to overlook legal constraints, guaranteeing that the president would shield them.
### A Brief Backstory
The saga regarding the TikTok ban has been fraught with chaos, characterized by numerous legal and political tactics. In a notable action, President Biden enacted the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which required ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to divest its U.S. operations by January 19, 2025, or be subjected to a ban. However, after assuming office, President Trump issued an executive order that postponed the ban and extended the deadline to April 5, 2025. This decision followed a brief offline period for TikTok in the U.S., but access was reinstated after Trump’s guarantees concerning the extension’s constitutionality.
On April 4, 2025, Trump further pushed back the deadline to June 19, 2025, and his administration sent correspondence to several tech firms, including Apple, Google, and Amazon, indicating that these companies would not face legal ramifications for continuing to support TikTok during this timeframe. Tan obtained these letters through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
### The Letters’ Content
The letters, especially one directed to Apple, underscored the president’s constitutional authority in matters of national security and foreign relations. It asserted that an abrupt termination of TikTok would hinder these responsibilities and concluded that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act did not violate presidential powers. The letters reassured companies that they could carry on their activities without facing liabilities under the Act during the designated periods.
### What Mr. Tan Has Stated
Tony Tan has voiced strong opposition to the assurances given by the Trump administration. In a declaration, he contended that the postponements of the TikTok ban lack legal grounds and cautioned that firms that continue to host TikTok risk exposing themselves to considerable legal liabilities. He pointed out that under federal law, both Trump and any subsequent president could prosecute these companies for infractions for up to five years.
Tan has initiated legal proceedings against Alphabet, Google’s parent company, aiming to scrutinize its choice to reinstate TikTok to the Play Store following the executive order. He believes this could result in “hundreds of billions of dollars in liability,” affecting shareholders like himself.
Legal professionals have resonated with Tan’s apprehensions, with some arguing that the president’s failure to enforce the law as mandated by the Constitution is alarming. Alan Z. Rozenshtein, a law professor, highlighted the constitutional obligation for presidents to ensure laws are faithfully executed, suggesting that the situation surrounding TikTok transcends mere corporate concerns; it implicates essential legal and constitutional issues.
### Conclusion
As the legal conflict persists, it remains ambiguous whether the correspondence from the Trump administration will offer enduring protection for companies affiliated with TikTok or merely function as temporary political defense. Tony Tan’s endeavors underscore the intricacies and potential consequences of corporate decisions amid evolving political environments. For the time being, he remains alert in his quest for accountability, ensuring that shareholders are not left susceptible to unexpected legal predicaments.
