(Preview) A Long Weekend for TikTok, Preparing for Trump and an Era of Upheaval, LeBron James as an iPhone

Summary

Sharp Tech with Ben Thompson

(Preview) A Long Weekend for TikTok, Preparing for Trump and an Era of Upheaval, LeBron James as an iPhone

Date: January 20, 2025
Hosts: Andrew Sharp (A), Ben Thompson (B)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the recent escalation surrounding TikTok’s fate in the U.S., the unique dynamics and uncertainty impending with Trump’s return to the presidency, and broader questions about the shifting relationship between executive power, Congress, and American governance. Throughout their discussion, Andrew Sharp and Ben Thompson analyze the TikTok ban and what it reveals about institutional friction in Washington, challenge assumptions about legal precedent, and explore how these debates reflect deeper trends in American political culture. The episode’s tone is reflective and concerned but frequently laced with their trademark analytical rigor and dry humor.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Executive Power and the Trump Era

(00:08 - 02:37)

• The hosts examine the increasing authority of the executive branch, especially under Trump, and the debate over whether authority rests with Congress or the president.
• Ben: "This shift...what we're getting is Trump kind of acting like a king." (00:08)
• The checks and balances between the branches are tested, as Ben notes, “Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, but the oldest fight in Washington is... the legislative prerogative versus the president.” (01:48)
• There is tension, even within the same political party, about how much control the president should wield, especially regarding bureaucracy and enforcement of laws.

2. The TikTok Ban and Legal Complexities

(02:38 - 05:40)

• Ben praises ByteDance’s strategy: "Actually ByteDance taking this to the end is extremely logical and the right thing to do." (02:38)
• The hosts unpack the failed First Amendment legal arguments by TikTok, with Ben highlighting, "The Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear on the deference to Congress and national security questions..." (03:34)
• Despite the legal nuance, both hosts agree the debate is about more than TikTok: it reflects a broader shift in how America governs, particularly in who sets and enforces the rules.

3. Precedent, the Bureaucracy, and Uncharted Waters

(05:40 - 07:00)

• Ben recalls how FDR reshaped constitutional norms, warning against overconfidence in existing legal protections:
  “I would just counsel people be wary of assuming the precedent and the way things operate and your understanding of the world in the 2010s is going to be operative in the future.” (06:16)
• They contextualize current events as possible precursors to similarly profound shifts.

4. The TikTok Moment: Systemic Reflections

(07:02 - 09:39)

• Andrew, drawing from his reporting, frames the TikTok controversy as a proof of the American system: "big picture, it was almost a great reminder that the American system can still work and respond to real problems." (08:08)
• The speed and stealth of the legislation are noted, due to TikTok’s significant lobbying efforts (08:12), but there’s a dysfunction in enforcement:
  • “The executive branch is just openly ignoring a law that Congress passed and Trump is taking over and doing a deal and, like, explicitly endorsing what may be a CCP information weapon as he takes office.” (08:48)
• There’s mutual concern about complacency and lack of urgency in the face of Chinese influence.

5. America’s Response to China and Bigger Threats

(09:39 - 10:17)

• Andrew voices frustration about American inaction towards the China threat:
  • "Nobody in America is actually going to get serious about the China threat ... until there are real existential threats, like actual, you know, armed conflict elsewhere in the world to motivate everybody." (09:39)
• The slow policy and cultural response contrast with the strategic stakes.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "This shift is...Trump kind of acting like a king."
  — Ben Thompson (00:08)

• "Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, but...the oldest fight in Washington is...the legislative prerogative versus the president."
  — Ben Thompson (01:48)

• "Actually ByteDance taking this to the end is extremely logical and the right thing to do."
  — Ben Thompson (02:38)

• "The Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear on the deference to Congress and national security questions..." — Ben Thompson (03:34)

• "I would just counsel people be wary of assuming the precedent and the way things operate and your understanding of the world in the 2010s is going to be operative in the future."
  — Ben Thompson (06:16)

• "Big picture, it was almost a great reminder that the American system can still work and respond to real problems."
  — Andrew Sharp (08:08)

• "Nobody in America is actually going to get serious about the China threat ... until there are real existential threats, like actual, you know, armed conflict elsewhere in the world to motivate everybody."
  — Andrew Sharp (09:39)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:08 — Rise of executive power; Trump’s leadership style
• 01:48 — Congressional vs. executive branch conflict
• 02:38 — ByteDance’s legal approach & TikTok’s First Amendment fight
• 05:40 — The FDR precedent and shifting constitutional norms
• 07:02 — TikTok’s legislative saga and system resilience
• 09:39 — Reflections on the U.S. response to perceived China threats

---

Summary & Tone

Throughout the conversation, Andrew and Ben mix historical perspective with clear-headed contemporary analysis, recognizing both the effectiveness and the shortcomings of America’s political and legal institutions. Their tone oscillates between reasoned concern and analytical detachment, with moments of humor to balance the gravity of the questions considered. If you want a window into the challenges and oddities at the intersection of tech policy, governance, and geopolitical anxiety in 2025 America, this episode is an insightful, spirited listen.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, and welcome to a free preview of Sharp Tech.

[B]

And so this is the world we've been living in. And there's been talk is this world ending? Is there a case? A lot of the things about Doge and all those bits and pieces are all about actually, we need to re establish executive control of the bureaucracy. All these sorts of things have taken on a life of their own. They're doing what they want. And actually it's the executive branch, the executive that is the president should be in charge. And in this sort of sense, this shift is this sort of what we're getting is Trump kind of acting like a king.

[A]

That's a lot of power in the executive, I'll tell you that much. And that's perhaps dangerous as we guess

[B]

what the American people want. TikTok and I want to make deals. And, and so, yeah, we're going to have some sort of fig leaf and make this attestation for the 90 day thing or whatever it might be. And what are you going to do? Are you, like, the answer is like, the legalistic answer is Congress, I would assume, holds him in contempt of Congress. Right. Like. And what does that mean?

[A]

Does that, do they ask the question? Yeah, I don't know whether they do, Tom Cox. Of course they don't about it.

[B]

Of course they don't. Like me.

[A]

They're not going to do that. But are they going to hold Trump accountable and at least publicly attack his posture on some of these issues? That is an open question, at least early on. Tom Cotton doesn't seem like he's, you know, bending over here. He's ready to continue at least attempting to enforce the law.

[B]

Yeah, well, no, I think that that is, you know, this is going to be the conflict to watch. Right, right. It really is. Yes. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, but the oldest fight in Washington is sort of like the legislative prerogative versus the president. And a Republican senator, even though it's the same party, is also a senator. The Senate is in many respects in opposition to the executive. They're the ones that have the purse strings. They fund the bureaucracy. Who is the president to tell us what can or cannot be done? And so, you know, I would, you know, I would say from the Trump perspective, is this the best thing to be? This is my bigger point. This is the outlines of fights that I think are going to be happening. And is this the one to blow all your political capital on before you're sort of even in office?

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

And there's a bit where you know, one thing I think we got very, very right on the last episode was basically saying, actually ByteDance, taking this to the end is extremely logical and the right thing to do. And your. It's a reasonable to interpret this as, oh, China won't allow them to sell this is proof it's a spy app.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That's an understandable position. It's also not necessarily true because from a sort of like this, even if

[A]

it were just a business, it would make sense to say, look, let's go balls to the wall trying to fight this. And then in the event that we're unable to succeed. And TikTok, apparently internally, really thought they were going to succeed on the First Amendment arguments in court and were pretty shocked that they didn't.

[B]

Well, that's just.

[A]

That's a sad thing. Baffling to me.

[B]

The Supreme Court precedent is. Is pretty clear on the deference to

[A]

Congress and national security questions is not.

[B]

No, you're right. It's like. It's like a double whammy. Yeah. Like they're. The First Amendment rights are not absolute. Now, there's different levels of scrutiny. We sort of talked about that previously, but there is clear precedent in terms of national security. Can Trump, no pun intended, these sort of concerns. So I don't have a queer take, to be honest, other than to outline that. I think this is more interesting for broader reasons than just a TikTok sort of ban. This is a. And that's what I meant about Trump being in. Like, there is a sense where. And you think about Trump's base. What does Trump's base want? Trump's base wants Trump to do things for them. They think that this is their vote, this is their opportunity to contribute to democracy. And the critique is actually, we had democracy for a long time because the bureaucrats are in charge and the whole. Again, that's why I tied to the Doge sort of idea and all these bits and pieces. Is the president in charge or is he not? And this is where the, you know, laws are laws. They also function. You know, the idea of the rule and law is a broad societal agreement. And it's very easy to take these discussions, particularly people like us that want to be very analytical and sort of retreat into the legalese and lose sight of what's happening at a broader, deeper level. And what you end up doing is being marginalizing yourself because you're talking about something that actually no one cares about. And so I don't know. I'm not sure if all that makes sense. I'M not giving queer analysis about what's gonna happen to TikTok XYZ. It's more an observation that I think we're on the leading edge of a really fundamentally different way of thinking about

[A]

governing and just diving into some uncharted waters here.

[B]

Well, this is where the FDR thing's really interesting. Like fdr, basically, you know, a lot of the laws FDR passed were not constitutional according to the commonly held understanding of the constitution in the 1920s. That's just the fact of the matter. And the Supreme Court started to rule them unconstitutional. And he's like, guess what? There's now gonna be like, 27 Supreme Court justices are gonna go on there. And what'd they do? Like to preserve their sort of legitimacy. They like, oh, actually, turns out these are constitutional. And you had this real fundamental shift in understanding. A lot of the precedents today that undergird the bureaucracy actually come from those cases in the 1930s and 1940s, which, again, were 180 degrees different than what came before. So I would just counsel people be wary of assuming the precedent and the way things operate. And your understanding of the world in the 2010s is going to be operative in the future. We could be the future. Andrew Sharps and Ben Thompson's could very well be sitting here in 2090 saying, well, you know, Supreme Court precedent says. And you look at what is the data of those precedents. It's from the 2028 TikTok case. XYZ said the president can do XYZ. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I. And this is.

[B]

I like how depressed I just made you look. You're just like.

[A]

You're really depressed. I mean, look, here's the thing with TikTok, because I've been covering this on Sharp China in parallel for two years now. And I will say this is not that big of a deal. It's not a make or break issue for the future of the country. But if we zoom out, the TikTok law, it was a byproduct of a couple different things. You had couple years of diligent reporting exposing various TikTok lies, data abuses, and national security concerns. You were part of that. There were others people at Forbes and buzzfeed and a number of people were doing really great work on this issue. And then there was bipartisan legislation that responded to all those concerns and was drafted really carefully to allow for divestiture,

[B]

to respond to some sort of national security briefing, which no one still has really knows about. But this like, bill went from like 0 to 100 very quickly. It was, it was, it was also, it was fairly odd. Like, like, why did that happen this year? Why did.

[A]

Well, it had to be done quietly because TikTok was just showering money all over D.C. lobbying against any efforts to potentially force a divestiture or ban it in the United States. And so the people who did this bill did it really carefully and really quietly, and they constructed a bill that would make it very hard for ByteDance to just flout the law entirely. And they succeeded. And then we also had a comprehensive judicial review of the law itself. And so big picture, it was almost a great reminder that the American system can still work and respond to real problems. And so now I'm a little deflated. I, I don't know what future we're inheriting here, but, you know, the executive branch is just openly ignoring a law that Congress passed and Trump is taking over and doing a deal and, like, explicitly endorsing what may be a CCP information weapon as he takes office. It makes us all look pretty ridiculous. But perhaps more will be revealed over the next 90 days and beyond. I don't know. I don't want to get too down here.

[B]

No, it's fair to be down there, to be down on the. What this says about our system of government. It's fair to be down about the seeming lack of care we have about, you know, sort of China having this tool and this weapon.

[A]

You know, I mean, that was my real take on all of it, is I thought to myself on Sunday, I was like, you know, Ben's right. Nobody in America is actually going to get serious about the China threat and start to undertake what needs to be undertaken in response. Until there are real existential threats, like actual, you know, armed conflict elsewhere in the world to motivate everybody, there's just not going to be enough urgency to combat the complacency and greed that exists in the United States.

[B]

Well, so this is, this is, this is the, this is the open question, I think.

[A]

All right. And that is the end of the free preview. If you'd like to hear more from Ben and I, there are links to subscribe in the show notes or you can also go to SharpTech FM. Either option will get you access to a personalized feed that has all the shows we do every week, plus lots more great content from strikeri and the Strirtechery plus bundle. Check it out and if you've got feedback, please email us at. Email sharptech fm.