# Presidential authority to ban TikTok

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-authority-to-ban-tiktok/921002>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [September 19, 2020, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-authority-to-ban-tiktok/921002 "2020-09-19T12:54:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2020, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-authority-to-ban-tiktok/921002/1 "2020-09-19T12:54:12Z")

</div>

What is the legal authority by which the president can order private companies to stop offering a particular product? All indications are that they will comply but what penalties could they face if they didn’t, by authority of what law?

The executive order to ban TikTok seems to have the force of law. I have never seen an executive order that does anything except dictate policy or execution of policy within the executive branch (not that I have studied them all). That seems to me the very definition of an executive order.

In the articles I have read on this, the focus is on the practical implications and reactions to it, but not the legal mechanisms for putting such a ban into place.

In an article in the Washington Post,

> [@](#):
>
> After midnight as Sunday turns to Monday, anyone attempting to download TikTok or WeChat from the Apple or Google app stores in the United States will not be able to do so, a senior Commerce Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. Users who already have the apps on a phone will not receive software updates or security patches, the official said.
> 
> The administration expects some users will find ways to continue using the apps and it does not intend to prosecute anyone for doing so, the official said. Its aim is to decrease use of the apps over time, the official said.
> 
> “We’re not going to haul some person using WeChat to communicate with persons overseas before a federal judge,” the official said.

They will not prosecute but there is an implication here that they could if they wanted to. If so what law would they be breaking?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2020, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-authority-to-ban-tiktok/921002/2 "2020-09-19T15:21:36Z")

</div>

I was wondering this myself but since cooking with gas already asked,

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2020, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-authority-to-ban-tiktok/921002/3 "2020-09-19T16:33:00Z")

</div>

Business Insider says he can, sort of:

> **[No, Donald Trump really can't 'ban' TikTok.](https://www.businessinsider.com/can-trump-ban-tiktok-no-legal-experts-cfius-alternative-options-2020-7)**
>
> However, Trump and the government can take other moves to hurt TikTok and ByteDance. Here's what legal experts say are the administration's options.