Independent Agency Rules — Week of Jun 23, 2025

This week, three government actions raised questions about the balance of power between the President and other branches of government.

First, an executive order directed the Justice Department not to enforce a law Congress passed banning TikTok's Chinese parent company from operating the app in the United States. The order went further than simply delaying enforcement—it retroactively shielded companies from any legal consequences for violating the law and claimed only the executive branch can enforce it, blocking states or individuals from doing so. The administration has indicated this flexibility is needed to manage ongoing national security negotiations over the app's ownership. Second, the President publicly acknowledged a Supreme Court ruling limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide orders blocking executive actions, specifically citing it as clearing the path to end birthright citizenship. Third, a nonpartisan government watchdog (the GAO) confirmed that a Bureau of Land Management plan for Alaska was legally required to be submitted to Congress for review—but it never was, and the administration had already ordered it rescinded by executive order. This might matter because these actions could affect the ability of Congress and courts to serve as independent checks on presidential power, a system designed to prevent any single branch of government from acting unilaterally.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. The TikTok enforcement delay may reflect practical negotiations over a complex national security transaction that Congress itself acknowledged might require presidential flexibility, and it may also reflect an executive response to perceived legislative inaction on fast-moving technology issues. The Supreme Court's injunction ruling reflects a legitimate legal debate—many legal scholars across the political spectrum have questioned whether individual district judges should be able to set nationwide policy, and the ruling still allows other avenues for legal challenges. And new administrations commonly revisit their predecessors' land-use decisions under existing statutory authority.

Still, the combination of directing non-enforcement of a statute, framing reduced judicial oversight as expanding executive authority, and acting outside a required congressional review process describes a week where executive authority expanded at the expense of the other branches' institutional roles.

Limitations: This analysis covers a small number of documents (17 total, 3 flagged) and reflects AI-assisted review, not definitive conclusions. Individual document selection in a sample this small can significantly affect findings. These are public statements and orders; their real-world implementation and legal durability remain to be determined.