> Forcing a foreign business to "sell or close" is an insult to the rule of law
These powers are precedented—-this is how antitrust law works. The U.S. has had similar procedures in CFIUS since 1975 [1][2], which is likely how U.S. would enforce this decision.
Keep in mind, it’s not sell or close. It’s an order to unwind the Musical.ly acquisition [3] or face sanctions.
> Since when could the President singlehandedly do it?
Since 1988, when the Congress passed a law saying “all foreign investments that might affect national security may be reviewed and if deemed to pose a threat to security, the President of the United States may block the investment” [1].
Grindr was sold to a Chinese company in 2016 (without submitting the transaction for CFIUS review), and then CFIUS intervened in 2019. It's not late at all.
Similarly, ByteDance had the choice to seek CFIUS review and approval in 2017 before they closed the Musical.ly deal, but chose not to. So CFIUS is intervening now.
That seems like a sale ripe for exploitation. China would have been able to harvest data on closeted individuals and leverage them. Completely agree with blocking this sale.
> President Reagan delegated the review process to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Delegating a power doesn’t remove one of that power. And CFIUS pre-dates Exon-Flores, so the Congress giving the President, not CFIUS, these powers is relevant.
We can have a discussion as to whether we like or dislike this action. (I am not a fan.) But suggesting it’s unprecedented or a breakdown of the rule of law is hyperbolic.
Congress gave that power to the president. Congress can take the power back if it wishes but it won't, not even with their showboating faux hatred for Trump. Congress hates making decisions like this one so they punt to the Executive Branch. This is not a unique situation. Over the years Congress has given away lots of its power to the president, which remains even when there is a change in office.
These powers are precedented—-this is how antitrust law works. The U.S. has had similar procedures in CFIUS since 1975 [1][2], which is likely how U.S. would enforce this decision.
Keep in mind, it’s not sell or close. It’s an order to unwind the Musical.ly acquisition [3] or face sanctions.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investm...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment
[3] https://hans.vc/bytedance-musical-ly-merger/