Future of Freedom Podcast Summary

Episode: David Dunmoyer & Joe Lancaster: Should a 'Ban' on TikTok Be Enforced?
Date: September 10, 2025
Host: Scot Bertram
Guests: David Dunmoyer (Texas Public Policy Foundation) & Joe Lancaster (Reason)

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode of Future of Freedom centers on the heated controversy surrounding the so-called TikTok “ban” in the United States: Is it truly a ban, or a justified national security measure? Host Scot Bertram moderates an in-depth, civil discussion, first with David Dunmoyer (supporting the enforcement as a cybersecurity necessity), then with Joe Lancaster (who challenges both the law and the manner of its (non-)enforcement on rule-of-law grounds). The conversation examines the legislation's intentions, First Amendment concerns, executive power, consequences for users and business, and broader issues of governance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is It a “Ban” or Cybersecurity Measure?

Guest: David Dunmoyer ([00:47]–[16:20])

• Legislation Framing:
  Dunmoyer argues that referring to the law as a TikTok “ban” is misleading, as the law provides TikTok an option: divest from Chinese ownership or exit the U.S. market.
  • “I choose not to call it a ban because I don't want to use the CCP talking points here. We're asking if you divest from the very country you say you're divested from, you can continue to do business as usual.” ([02:49])
• Transparency & Data Privacy:
  U.S. companies face regulatory oversight and must offer users data transparency and opt-outs; TikTok, by contrast, lacks such mechanisms, leaving Americans unaware how their data is used or where it's stored.
  • “Any free market transaction requires transparency at the front end. So I know what I'm trading or giving up in exchange for that service.” ([06:06])
• Evidence of Abuse & Opacity:
  Dunmoyer stresses the difficulty in finding “concrete evidence” due to TikTok’s design:
  • “That's kind of the whole conundrum here... The very opacity that they've built into their algorithm and in their company is we don't fully know how they're using this personal information.” ([05:41])
• Comparison With Chinese Version (Douyin):
  The Chinese version is educational and motivational, while the U.S. version encourages addictive consumption:
  • “China's fought a war over opium once. I think this is the second iteration of it... In China the number one desired professional career for kids is to be an astronaut. In America it's to be an influencer...” ([07:58])
• National Security & First Amendment Concerns:
  Dunmoyer recalls SCOTUS’s unanimous upholding, grounding the law in national and consumer protection priorities:
  • “The Supreme Court of the United States upheld this legislation unanimously. And they see it through the lens of national security…” ([10:28])
• Potential for Slippery Slope:
  Acknowledges that the law could apply to other adversary-owned apps but considers national security interests paramount:
  • “If you're asking me is that dragnet worth this trade off here... I think that's a justifiable trade off.” ([12:48])
• Economic & Social Fallout:
  Recognizes hardship for influencers and small businesses but frames the trade-off as necessary:
  • “National security is national security and I think that is the transcendent force behind this... business owners are by their nature adaptive and resourceful… that transcendent force of national security, it’s a worthwhile, albeit short term painful trade off, [for] long term benefit.” ([14:23])

2. The Case Against the TikTok Ban – and Its Non-Enforcement

Guest: Joe Lancaster ([16:22]–[31:57])

• Unprecedented Law Targeting a Single Company:
  Lancaster critiques the law for singling out TikTok and its parent, an approach unprecedented in U.S. legislative history:
  • “It is, by my, to my knowledge, the only time in American history that Congress singled out an individual company and said this company can no longer operate within our borders.” ([16:59])
• Selective Enforcement and Executive Power Concerns:
  Argues that not enforcing a “bad law” is even more dangerous than enforcing it, as it sets a precedent for executive noncompliance:
  • “It is much more dangerous to create the precedent that the President can simply ignore laws that he doesn't want to enforce.” ([18:16])
• Statutory Overreach and Tech Company Liability:
  Calls attention to the law’s reach—not just TikTok, but any American company servicing it can be fined massively:
  • “Any of those companies that still provide services to TikTok can be fined up to $5,000 for each user. In the United States, TikTok has 170 million users. So at the high end, that's $850 billion.” ([20:40])
  • Criticizes Attorney General Bondi’s unprecedented letters absolving companies retroactively and prospectively, bypassing legal limitations:
    “She produced from thin air the right to, in her words, irrevocably relinquish any future right to prosecute these companies, even though the law itself has a statute of limitations of five years...” ([21:27])
• Is This Really New? Selective Enforcement in U.S. History:
  Bertram prompts comparison to past presidential non-enforcement (e.g., the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare delay). Lancaster contends the TikTok case is more severe:
  • “This is a bit of a different animal in a lot of ways... It's a different thing altogether to say that you're just, you're going to ignore a law as passed by Congress...” ([24:05])
• Congressional Responsibility and Power Drift:
  Notes Congress hasn’t moved to repeal, nor shown will to challenge the executive inaction. Predicts continued abdication:
  • “The story of Congress...has been a gradual relinquishing of its powers to the executive in a lot of ways. For whatever reason, the members of Congress apparently feel...that power should be entrusted to a single person instead.” ([30:10])
• Broader Rule of Law Crisis:
  Warns that normalizing executive disregard for law could undermine constitutional checks and balances:
  • “[I] absolutely feel like this could be just the first step in a multi step process wherein the President does decide that, well, he has the ability to apply this same logic to any number of laws that he doesn't agree with...” ([28:05])
  • “If we allow this to stand...theoretically, there's no limit to what he could simply decide he doesn't have to abide by because it gets in the way of something else he wants to do.” ([29:11])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the “ban” language:
  Dunmoyer: “I choose not to call it a ban because I don't want to use the CCP talking points here.” ([02:49])
• On TikTok’s U.S. algorithm:
  Dunmoyer: “It's quite literally digital opium. How do we increase the engagement and addiction as fast as humanly possible to distract kids from meaningful development…” ([08:23])
• On data transparency and trade:
  Dunmoyer: “Any free market transaction requires transparency at the front end. So I know what I'm trading or giving up in exchange for that service.” ([06:06])
• On the rule of law:
  Lancaster: “It is much more dangerous to create the precedent that the President can simply ignore laws that he doesn't want to enforce.” ([18:16])
• On executive overreach:
  Lancaster: “She [Pam Bondi, Attorney General] produced from thin air the right to...irrevocably relinquish any future right to prosecute these companies, even though the law itself has a statute of limitations of five years.” ([21:27])
• On Congressional abdication:
  Lancaster: “The story of Congress...has been a gradual relinquishing of its powers to the executive in a lot of ways.” ([30:10])
• On long-term constitutional risk:
  Lancaster: “If we allow this to stand… theoretically, there's no limit to what he could simply decide he doesn't have to abide by because it gets in the way of something else he wants to do.” ([29:11])

Important Timestamps

• [00:47]–[07:58]: Dunmoyer on origins, intent, transparency difference, and American vs. Chinese TikTok user experience.
• [10:28]: Discussion of national security concerns vs. First Amendment.
• [12:48]: Legislation’s potential expansion, slippery slope argument.
• [14:23]: Fallout for influencers, businesses, and inevitability of trade-offs.
• [16:59]: Lancaster on the law’s singularity and dangerous precedent.
• [18:16]: Dangers of selective enforcement.
• [20:40]: Law’s reach to American tech companies and magnitude of penalties.
• [22:32]: Discussion on presidential precedent and comparison to Obamacare enforcement delay.
• [26:22]: Responsibility of Congress and lack of repeal.
• [28:05]: Potential for broader constitutional crisis.
• [30:10]: Historic trend of Congressional power delegation to the executive.

Conclusion

This episode provides a thoughtful, nuanced exploration of the TikTok “ban,” its real national security stakes, data privacy concerns, legislative intent, as well as the unintended—possibly constitutional—consequences of both the law itself and the government’s subsequent unwillingness to enforce it. Dunmoyer frames enforcement as critical national defense, while Lancaster is more alarmed by the precedent of selective enforcement and the erosion of the rule of law. Both recognize the complexity and gravity of the moment, as the intersection of technology, liberty, security, and governance takes center stage.