Apple and Google Will Regret Breaking the Law for Trump

Adam Conner is the vice president for technology policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Less than a month into his second term, US President Donald Trump has made clear that corruption and lawlessness will be hallmarks of his administration. Among other points of evidence, his refusal to enforce the law banning TikTok and urging other companies to break that law set a dangerous precedent. Then, on February 13, Apple and Google caved to his demands and made TikTok available in their app stores again. That two of the richest and most powerful companies in the world surrendered to a president’s desire to flaunt the law sends an ominous signal about how American companies may respond to Trump’s rampant disregard for the rule of law.

The law that bans TikTok clearly and explicitly prohibits Apple and Google from distributing it in their app stores. Uniquely, this law is primarily enforced not against foreign apps like TikTok themselves but by leveraging steep fines against the companies that host or distribute them, including via mobile app stores. Considering TikTok’s 170 million US users, those fines could total as much as $850 billion. The executive order Trump issued halted enforcement of this law for 75 days, reiterated by subsequent letters of assurance sent to Google and Apple by Attorney General Bondi—but that doesn’t change the text of the law or provide these companies with meaningful legal protection.

Why would Apple and Google risk hundreds of billions of dollars in fines over an app neither of them owns or even makes much money off hosting? A possible answer: The Department of Justice is prosecuting numerous antitrust cases against both Apple and Google, and Trump’s tariffs directly threaten Apple’s manufacturing supply chains.

The number of major issues impacting these companies that Trump currently commands is alarming. Apple is facing a DOJ antitrust lawsuit for monopolizing the smartphone market. It’s also facing huge price hikes thanks to Trump’s promised tariff blitz. Meanwhile, Google lost an antitrust lawsuit to the DOJ—a case filed during the first Trump administration—which found the company holds an illegal monopoly on internet searches. The DOJ has also argued a second antitrust case against Google’s advertising technology, which is currently being decided by a federal judge.

Amid all their legal troubles, the CEOs of both companies have been seen attempting to cozy up to Trump. First, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and then Google CEO Sundar Pichai was seen sitting front row at his inauguration alongside tech CEOs Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg.

We’ve already seen the DOJ is willing to comply with dropping cases for political reasons. Both companies restored TikTok the same day the news broke that numerous DOJ employees had resigned to avoid executing what they alleged was a nefarious quid pro quo. It’s the kind of coincidence we can expect to see often over the next four years.

Regardless of your feelings about the TikTok ban, it’s the law. Republicans control both arms of Congress, and they could easily pass a modification to the TikTok ban if they wanted. Instead, they’re content to let the President and Attorney General declare laws he dislikes to simply not apply.

It’s a tremendous leap of faith for these companies to risk crippling fines seemingly to satisfy a president notorious for changing his word. After all, this is the same president who tried to ban TikTok himself five years ago. The same president who lashed out at both Google and Apple in the very recent past. A president who might relish the ability in the future to threaten these companies with up to $850 billion in fines. These billionaire CEOs may think they’re currying favor with Trump by agreeing to ignore the law, but they may have just handed him another weapon to use against them in the future.

Now that two of the biggest companies in the history of the world have bent to Trump’s will in clear violation of the law, how can any other company be expected to stand up to a president who demands they follow suit?