DOJ Docs Expose How Google & Apple Sidestepped TikTok Ban—Here’s Why They Did It

Behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering kept TikTok alive in U.S. app stores—despite Congress’ attempted kill shot. Newly uncovered DOJ letters reveal the loopholes tech giants exploited to bypass the ban.

How Silicon Valley plays the long game

Apple and Google didn’t just ignore Washington’s TikTok crackdown—they weaponized legal gray areas. Their argument? A forced removal would ‘destabilize the app ecosystem’ (translation: hurt their 30% cut of creator revenues).

Wall Street shrugs—again

While DC postured about national security, Big Tech quietly prioritized revenue streams. Another case of ‘risk management’ meaning ‘profit protection’—with zero regard for actual user data privacy. But hey, at least the ad-tech oligopoly stays intact.

TLDRs;

• Newly released DOJ letters show Apple and Google were promised immunity for defying TikTok ban law.
• The Trump administration delayed enforcement to buy time for a sale of TikTok to a U.S. entity.
• Tech companies were assured the DOJ would block any legal action against them.
• TikTok remains online as the U.S. waits for ByteDance to finalize a divestiture deal.

Amid rising political pressure to enforce a sweeping U.S. law banning TikTok, newly released documents show the Justice Department privately assured major tech companies they WOULD not face legal repercussions for keeping the app available to American users.

The internal communications, revealed through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, offer a striking behind-the-scenes look at how the TRUMP administration worked to shield Apple, Google, and others from liability under a controversial law targeting the Chinese-owned platform.

Secret Assurances Behind the Scenes

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act required U.S. firms to deplatform TikTok or risk enormous penalties, allegedly reaching into the hundreds of billions.

The law was part of a broader national security strategy to force ByteDance, TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, to divest from its U.S. operations. But enforcement proved more complicated in practice than on paper.

Zhaocheng Anthony Tan, a Google shareholder who filed suit to obtain the correspondence, successfully forced the release of several letters authored by both Acting Attorney General James McHenry III and his successor Pam Bondi.

These letters, sent to Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and other infrastructure providers, explicitly promised that the Department of Justice would not hold them accountable for violating the law’s mandates. Moreover, they pledged federal intervention to block any attempts by third parties to impose penalties or initiate lawsuits.

Delay After Delay from the White House

One such letter, dated April 5, directly followed President Trump’s extension of the enforcement deadline to mid-June. It underscored the administration’s willingness to use legal tools like amicus briefs and federal intervention to shield companies from fallout.

Earlier correspondence from McHenry on January 30 aligned with an executive order that had just delayed the law’s implementation by 75 days. Trump would go on to issue a third delay, pushing the deadline to mid-September.

Ban Remains Theoretical for Now

Though the existence of these letters had been rumored, their contents had remained classified until now. Their release not only explains why TikTok remained operational on U.S. app stores but also raises deeper questions about the legal durability of the ban and the government’s mixed messaging to the public and the courts.

At the heart of the matter lies an unresolved dilemma. While Washington insisted that TikTok posed a national security threat, it repeatedly allowed the platform to operate amid prolonged attempts to secure a non-Chinese buyer. President Trump has maintained that a deal is in progress, though neither the buyer nor the terms have been disclosed, and approval from Chinese regulators remains a barrier.

As legal scholars debate whether any of these executive actions have clear grounding in law, the DOJ’s quiet reassurances have created a de facto grace period that has kept TikTok running in the U.S. even as its legal status hangs in limbo.