1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,559 --> 00:00:10,840
Speaker 1: A seventy thousand dollar deduction for haircuts, twenty six million

3
00:00:10,880 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 1: dollars and consulting fee right offs, a family estate that

4
00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:18,600
Speaker 1: generated a twenty one million dollar charitable deduction, and an

5
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:21,479
Speaker 1: i r S challenge to a seventy two million dollar

6
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:24,760
Speaker 1: refund claim. Those are just some of the revelations from

7
00:00:24,760 --> 00:00:28,280
Speaker 1: a New York Times analysis of President Trump's tax returns,

8
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: But at the first presidential debate, Trump denied the Times

9
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:34,879
Speaker 1: report that he only paid seven hundred fifty dollars in

10
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:39,519
Speaker 1: federal income taxes in both twenty sixteen and seventeen. Is

11
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:42,199
Speaker 1: it true that you paid seven hundred fifty dollars in

12
00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:46,040
Speaker 1: federal income taxes each of those two years. I've paid

13
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:51,239
Speaker 1: millions of dollars in taxes, millions of dollars of income tax. However,

14
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:55,640
Speaker 1: in a seemingly contradictory explanation, Trump then spelled out how

15
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: he has exploited depreciation tax credits and other provisions of

16
00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:02,680
Speaker 1: the tax code to reduce his personal tax bill. It

17
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:05,080
Speaker 1: was the tax laws. I don't want to pay tax.

18
00:01:05,520 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 1: Before I came here, I was a private developer. I

19
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:11,600
Speaker 1: was a private business. People, like every other private person,

20
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,000
Speaker 1: unless they're stupid, they go through the laws, and that's

21
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:18,039
Speaker 1: what it is. My guest is Michael Grats, a professor

22
00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:20,640
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. He's the author of the new

23
00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 1: book The Wolf at the Door, The Menace of Economic

24
00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:26,760
Speaker 1: Insecurity and How to Fight It. Can we tell whether

25
00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:31,000
Speaker 1: President Trump is a billionaire from the information in the

26
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:33,560
Speaker 1: New York Times? Well, I think it's very hard to

27
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,520
Speaker 1: know what his assets are from the tax return information

28
00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:40,560
Speaker 1: we've been given. You know, it's often very hard to

29
00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:44,160
Speaker 1: tell what someone's worth is from an income tax return,

30
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 1: and in his case, it's even more difficult because there

31
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: are so many losses that have been claimed and it's

32
00:01:52,200 --> 00:01:56,240
Speaker 1: not clear whether these are real economic losses or whether

33
00:01:56,280 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 1: they're just tax deductions and losses. During the eight Trump

34
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 1: said that as a private real estate developer, he took

35
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:09,240
Speaker 1: advantage of what he called privileges. Explain those for us, Well,

36
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:12,840
Speaker 1: real estate developers have a number of advantages in the

37
00:02:12,880 --> 00:02:16,359
Speaker 1: tax law. They get to take deductions even when someone

38
00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 1: else has financed the real estate, and so a lot

39
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:24,560
Speaker 1: of the deductions and losses that Donald Trump seems to

40
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:29,919
Speaker 1: be claiming our financed through borrowing, and the law permits that.

41
00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:32,200
Speaker 1: Although I have to say there are a number of

42
00:02:32,360 --> 00:02:35,280
Speaker 1: issues that were raised by The New York Times that

43
00:02:35,360 --> 00:02:37,639
Speaker 1: seemed to me to be quite questionable and go well

44
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:42,440
Speaker 1: beyond the normal issues involving real estate. Are you referring

45
00:02:42,440 --> 00:02:46,680
Speaker 1: to his personal expenses that were written off as business deductions?

46
00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:49,679
Speaker 1: There are a number of issues about whether deductions he's

47
00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:53,679
Speaker 1: taking for business are really business deductions or whether they're

48
00:02:53,720 --> 00:02:57,840
Speaker 1: non deductible personal expenses. There's a long list of those.

49
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:02,200
Speaker 1: They include the haircuts were sure typically not allowable. If

50
00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:03,800
Speaker 1: you're a soldier and you have to get your hair

51
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:06,680
Speaker 1: cut every two weeks, you don't get a deduct your haircuts.

52
00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:10,160
Speaker 1: Their cases on this, and there's a case involving an entertainer.

53
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:13,160
Speaker 1: But there are also issues involving what he's treating as

54
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:17,200
Speaker 1: business and what he's treating as personal. With the Seven Springs,

55
00:03:17,200 --> 00:03:20,120
Speaker 1: a state which seems to be a family a retreat,

56
00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 1: according at least to other family members. The allocation of

57
00:03:24,360 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 1: expenses in mar Lago, which he's claiming our business but

58
00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 1: it's also his personal residence, raised questions, and there are

59
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 1: others and Seven Springs generated at twenty one point one

60
00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:40,880
Speaker 1: million dollar charitable deduction for Trump because, as you say,

61
00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:43,840
Speaker 1: he treated it as an investment property. Well as I

62
00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: understand it, most of his charitable deductions, almost all of

63
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:55,119
Speaker 1: his charitable deductions were conservation easements that were allowed on

64
00:03:55,280 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: his real estate holdings, including Seven Springs, and concervation easements

65
00:04:01,240 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 1: haven't been identified by the i r S as one

66
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:07,520
Speaker 1: of the most abusive types of charitable donations. What you're

67
00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:12,000
Speaker 1: doing is you're promising either access. I know that from

68
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:15,520
Speaker 1: earlier reports he seems to have allowed people to walk

69
00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:19,040
Speaker 1: around hunt on but around the golf courses and taken

70
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 1: deductions for that. You know, he obviously has some conservation

71
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:27,160
Speaker 1: easement involving Seven Springs, although we don't know what it is.

72
00:04:27,279 --> 00:04:30,160
Speaker 1: It may be, you know, to keep a bird habitat,

73
00:04:30,320 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 1: or to clean water on the property, things that he

74
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:37,240
Speaker 1: might do anyway. And there's always a question about the

75
00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:41,520
Speaker 1: valuation of these easements. Of the value is supposed to

76
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 1: be the loss in the value of the property. That is,

77
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:48,839
Speaker 1: you compare the value of the property without the easement

78
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 1: and the value of the property with the easement, and

79
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:54,719
Speaker 1: you get a deduction for the difference. But It's quite

80
00:04:54,760 --> 00:04:58,840
Speaker 1: common for high income people who have real estate and

81
00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:04,480
Speaker 1: want to get a charitable deduction to overvalue their conservation eastments.

82
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:09,120
Speaker 1: This is something IRUs has long identified as often abusive,

83
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:12,080
Speaker 1: and of course we don't have enough information to know,

84
00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:14,839
Speaker 1: but it's pretty clear that Donald Trump has been quite

85
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:18,839
Speaker 1: aggressive in trying to reduce his taxes, and virtually all

86
00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 1: of his charitable deductions, probably all other than the ones

87
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 1: he gave to the Trump Foundation, seemed to be conservation easements.

88
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 1: The Times reports about seven d fifty thousand dollars in

89
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,680
Speaker 1: consulting fee right off to his daughter, Ivanka Trump. So

90
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:38,360
Speaker 1: what about putting his daughter on the payroll and then

91
00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:43,080
Speaker 1: writing off consulting fees. That's another red flag I think

92
00:05:43,160 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: for tax auditors. And she was, as I understand it,

93
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:50,719
Speaker 1: an employee of the Trump organization, but nevertheless there is

94
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: an additional payment to her other than her salary as

95
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:59,039
Speaker 1: a consultant. You know, you're allowed to deduct payments for

96
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:03,160
Speaker 1: services ordered, even if they're rendered by a family member,

97
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:06,799
Speaker 1: but those services have to be at fair value, fair

98
00:06:06,960 --> 00:06:09,520
Speaker 1: arm's length value what you could pay to somebody who's

99
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,360
Speaker 1: not a family member, and it may be a way

100
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:16,039
Speaker 1: to transfer property to his daughter free of a state

101
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:21,159
Speaker 1: tax or gift tax um and to get a tax deduction.

102
00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:26,039
Speaker 1: It would be interesting to know whether you know what

103
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:30,719
Speaker 1: her what her income tax returns show with regard to

104
00:06:30,800 --> 00:06:36,680
Speaker 1: this and her employment tax returns or self employment tax returns.

105
00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:39,839
Speaker 1: We just don't know. But it certainly raises red flags,

106
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:42,880
Speaker 1: red flags for the I R S. But are any

107
00:06:43,040 --> 00:06:47,320
Speaker 1: of these deductions or the way he is using the

108
00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: tax code? Are criminal penalties possible in any of those cases?

109
00:06:51,880 --> 00:06:57,479
Speaker 1: I mean, criminal cases are very fact intensive proceedings. You

110
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 1: have to prove that the person knew what the tax

111
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 1: law was and willfully didn't follow it. Now, you know,

112
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:09,640
Speaker 1: if he's got a home a family retreat and he's

113
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:12,560
Speaker 1: treating it as if it's some business and there's no

114
00:07:12,640 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 1: income associated with it, it certainly raises questions about whether

115
00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:21,080
Speaker 1: what his intent was and what he knew about what

116
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:25,480
Speaker 1: he was doing. UM. But some of it is probably

117
00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: not criminal. It's it's just aggressive. And if the I

118
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:36,360
Speaker 1: R S is auditing his returns as they should be, UM,

119
00:07:36,400 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: some of these deductions will almost certainly be disallowed. My

120
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:45,000
Speaker 1: accountant did it defense? Does that defense work in these cases?

121
00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:49,440
Speaker 1: You know, as I say, it's not a get out

122
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:53,360
Speaker 1: of jail free card. It's it depends on what the

123
00:07:53,400 --> 00:08:02,520
Speaker 1: taxpayer new and whether the taxpayer intentionally violated the law.

124
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: And it's very hard to prove, especially if you have

125
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:12,200
Speaker 1: a letter or advice from an accountant or an attorney

126
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:16,280
Speaker 1: who knows all the facts. Um, it's very hard to

127
00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:22,119
Speaker 1: bring a criminal case in these circumstances. It's almost always inappropriate.

128
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:27,320
Speaker 1: But but a lot of times criminal tax cases turn

129
00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:35,440
Speaker 1: on situations where the client new facts and didn't quite

130
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:39,360
Speaker 1: tell the accountant or the lawyer all of the facts

131
00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:43,120
Speaker 1: as they were. And you know, we just don't know

132
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:47,280
Speaker 1: enough to know anything about what was going on between

133
00:08:47,559 --> 00:08:51,720
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and his accountants and lawyers. The I R.

134
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 1: S is challenging a seventy two point nine million dollar

135
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:59,960
Speaker 1: refund that Trump claimed a decade ago. First of all,

136
00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 1: why would it take ten years to come to a

137
00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:08,000
Speaker 1: resolution of this, Well, the facts may be complicated. UM.

138
00:09:08,400 --> 00:09:12,600
Speaker 1: I suspect that this, I mean, at least based on

139
00:09:12,640 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 1: the news reports, this seems to be the abandonment a

140
00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:24,000
Speaker 1: loss attributable to the abandonment of a casino in Atlantic City. Um,

141
00:09:24,040 --> 00:09:27,880
Speaker 1: if you abandon the property and you get nothing in return,

142
00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:34,240
Speaker 1: then that may be deductible that loss. But if you

143
00:09:35,240 --> 00:09:40,720
Speaker 1: h do get something of value and return or you

144
00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:44,760
Speaker 1: keep something of value um and here there are at

145
00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:48,680
Speaker 1: least suggestions that he may have had stock that was

146
00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 1: retained in the company, then you're not entitled to that loss.

147
00:09:55,760 --> 00:09:58,640
Speaker 1: And so there may be there may be complicated facts.

148
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:03,800
Speaker 1: There may also be issues of the cancelation of debt

149
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:08,000
Speaker 1: on that property. As I understand it, he had very

150
00:10:08,120 --> 00:10:12,239
Speaker 1: large debts that were never paid back on that property.

151
00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:18,680
Speaker 1: And usually if you cancel a debt, that's taxable income

152
00:10:19,040 --> 00:10:25,920
Speaker 1: to you. We've seen many families suffer taxes when their

153
00:10:25,960 --> 00:10:31,200
Speaker 1: house is foreclosed, and students who are unable to pay

154
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:37,040
Speaker 1: their loans but are not bankrupt tend to tend to

155
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:41,960
Speaker 1: have to pay taxes when that debt is forgiven. And

156
00:10:42,000 --> 00:10:45,640
Speaker 1: so I'm guessing it's just a guess, but I'm guessing

157
00:10:45,679 --> 00:10:49,839
Speaker 1: that there issues about whether there was a true abandonment

158
00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:54,920
Speaker 1: and issues about the treatment of the dat. Whether he's

159
00:10:54,960 --> 00:11:00,440
Speaker 1: taking a loss for the lenders, the lenders suffer loss,

160
00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:05,040
Speaker 1: and whether Trump is taking a tax loss that really

161
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:09,959
Speaker 1: properly belongs to the lender may be an issue. So

162
00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:13,440
Speaker 1: it's may be a complicated set of issues. We don't

163
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:17,960
Speaker 1: know enough about it to opine, but tax audits often

164
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:22,080
Speaker 1: take a long time. And as we've seen, Donald Trump

165
00:11:23,120 --> 00:11:27,120
Speaker 1: is perfectly willing, as we've seen with the subpoena case

166
00:11:27,880 --> 00:11:31,640
Speaker 1: over his tax records, He's perfectly willing to go into

167
00:11:31,679 --> 00:11:38,439
Speaker 1: court and delay. Uh and and probably and administrative procedure

168
00:11:38,760 --> 00:11:41,719
Speaker 1: or the I R S make it very difficult for

169
00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:44,000
Speaker 1: the I R s to to get all the facts,

170
00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:49,600
Speaker 1: and um, you know so, so it's not shocking that

171
00:11:49,720 --> 00:11:53,120
Speaker 1: it's taken this long. I suspect that when he became

172
00:11:53,160 --> 00:11:57,360
Speaker 1: president of the United States that slowed that thought it down.

173
00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:02,520
Speaker 1: And that's been nearly four year years now, so it

174
00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:05,440
Speaker 1: was pending. It was obviously pending when he became president.

175
00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:08,640
Speaker 1: And I'd be surprised if the I R S wants

176
00:12:08,679 --> 00:12:12,400
Speaker 1: to levy a large tax on their boss at the

177
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:15,920
Speaker 1: moment what stood out to you most or what shocked

178
00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 1: you most, if anything at the time story is accurate,

179
00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:22,440
Speaker 1: and it seems quite likely to be accurate. They seem

180
00:12:22,520 --> 00:12:25,600
Speaker 1: to have the information they claimed to have. There is

181
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:30,839
Speaker 1: evidence of an unusually aggressive set of tax positions that

182
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:34,800
Speaker 1: have been taken, particularly on the line between what's business

183
00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:39,720
Speaker 1: and what's personal, whether it's the payment to Avanka, seven Springs,

184
00:12:40,040 --> 00:12:45,400
Speaker 1: mar Lago or haircuts, all of those fit into that category. UM.

185
00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:49,600
Speaker 1: Conservation easements that we've talked about are also in in

186
00:12:49,720 --> 00:12:55,520
Speaker 1: that category UM and so UM. You know, it seems

187
00:12:55,520 --> 00:13:01,040
Speaker 1: to be a person who perhaps not surprisingly, is exceptionally

188
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:07,640
Speaker 1: aggressive in his tax reporting. It looks to me like

189
00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:11,560
Speaker 1: he treats his tax returns as an opening bid um

190
00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:14,720
Speaker 1: and the i R S then has to come challenge

191
00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:22,599
Speaker 1: anything that is at all dubious or suspect in those returns.

192
00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:28,160
Speaker 1: And not everyone who files the tax return behaves that way.

193
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:33,000
Speaker 1: Many people, including many wealthy people, try and figure out

194
00:13:33,080 --> 00:13:38,120
Speaker 1: what they owe the government, pay their taxes and and

195
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:42,960
Speaker 1: and do not relish the prospect of i R s audit.

196
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:46,360
Speaker 1: I guess the other thing that we haven't talked about

197
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:52,800
Speaker 1: that worried me just as a citizen, is that there

198
00:13:53,679 --> 00:13:58,960
Speaker 1: seem to be large payments on his taxes and relationships

199
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:06,320
Speaker 1: with both the Philippine and the Turkish governments. And given

200
00:14:07,080 --> 00:14:14,599
Speaker 1: the behavior that Trump has exhibited towards those two countries

201
00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:20,960
Speaker 1: and their strong men leaders brutal leaders in some cases,

202
00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:29,040
Speaker 1: one does have to wonder whether those financial relationships are

203
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:35,920
Speaker 1: having some undue influence on the foreign policy of the

204
00:14:36,040 --> 00:14:40,120
Speaker 1: United States, whether it's in Syria or whether it has

205
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:43,160
Speaker 1: to do with human rights abuses in the Philippines. That's

206
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: Michael Grat's of Columbia Law School his new book, The

207
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:49,800
Speaker 1: Wolf of the Door, The Menace of Economic Insecurity and

208
00:14:49,840 --> 00:14:54,760
Speaker 1: How to Fight It. After an unusual Sunday morning hearing,

209
00:14:55,200 --> 00:14:59,920
Speaker 1: a federal judge has temporarily blocked President Trump's ban on TikTok,

210
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:02,800
Speaker 1: stealing a glow to the government and it's showdown with

211
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:07,120
Speaker 1: the popular Chinese owned app that it says threatens national security.

212
00:15:07,640 --> 00:15:10,600
Speaker 1: Joining me is Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Berkeley

213
00:15:10,640 --> 00:15:14,600
Speaker 1: Center for Law and Technology, stop by explaining what the

214
00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:18,480
Speaker 1: band by Trump would have done if the judge hadn't

215
00:15:19,000 --> 00:15:23,520
Speaker 1: blocked it. So it was a two phase of band

216
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:29,240
Speaker 1: by the President directed against TikTok. The first half of it,

217
00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:36,000
Speaker 1: which was due to be effective yesterday Sunday, September, would

218
00:15:36,040 --> 00:15:40,880
Speaker 1: have basically prohibited any downloads, any new downloads of the

219
00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:46,640
Speaker 1: TikTok app, or any updates to already downloaded versions of

220
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:50,600
Speaker 1: the app, So it would have knocked TikTok off of

221
00:15:50,680 --> 00:15:55,880
Speaker 1: the app stores of Google and Apple. The second half

222
00:15:55,880 --> 00:16:00,880
Speaker 1: of the order, intended to be effective November twelve, would

223
00:16:00,880 --> 00:16:08,320
Speaker 1: have basically effectively ended the functioning of the existing downloads

224
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:14,120
Speaker 1: by prohibiting any Internet hosting or any provision of content

225
00:16:14,200 --> 00:16:20,320
Speaker 1: Delivery Network cd N of services which are basically essential

226
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:23,960
Speaker 1: to enabled the functioning of any of any mobile app

227
00:16:24,400 --> 00:16:28,440
Speaker 1: So two phases one known new downloads supposed to be

228
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:33,520
Speaker 1: taking effect less night blocked by the judge. Further restrictions

229
00:16:33,600 --> 00:16:37,880
Speaker 1: November twelve left untouched so far by the judge. What

230
00:16:37,960 --> 00:16:40,480
Speaker 1: were the arguments to the judge of TikTok and the

231
00:16:40,560 --> 00:16:48,360
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Well, Ticktock raised a variety of arguments um

232
00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:54,000
Speaker 1: starting with the fact that the statute relied upon by

233
00:16:54,160 --> 00:17:03,440
Speaker 1: President Trump, the International Economic Emergency Power Act, or that statute,

234
00:17:03,520 --> 00:17:07,200
Speaker 1: gives the President very broad powers to block any kind

235
00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:12,560
Speaker 1: of transaction involving any foreign person or any foreign entity

236
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:18,320
Speaker 1: or any foreign government. But it has an exception. It

237
00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:22,719
Speaker 1: says nothing in the Act grants to President any power

238
00:17:22,840 --> 00:17:31,240
Speaker 1: to directly or indirectly prohibit any personal communication. It was

239
00:17:31,280 --> 00:17:36,320
Speaker 1: on to say, no power to regulate or prohibit directly

240
00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:44,920
Speaker 1: or indirectly any importation or exportation of informational material UM.

241
00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:49,280
Speaker 1: So the TikTok argued, the President is indirectly banning people

242
00:17:49,359 --> 00:17:55,800
Speaker 1: from personal communications via TikTok. TikTok also made arguments around

243
00:17:56,080 --> 00:18:02,119
Speaker 1: UM First Amendment UH, and it made arguments round due process,

244
00:18:02,400 --> 00:18:08,800
Speaker 1: arguing that the President's Order and Commerce Department of implementing

245
00:18:09,320 --> 00:18:15,360
Speaker 1: prohibitions were not properly issued, that TikTok had not had

246
00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:19,159
Speaker 1: an opportunity to respond, that this was basically a violation

247
00:18:19,320 --> 00:18:23,399
Speaker 1: of TikTok's due process. As of this moment, we don't

248
00:18:23,480 --> 00:18:27,439
Speaker 1: actually know which of those arguments the judge accepted UM.

249
00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:33,560
Speaker 1: The judges considering um demands are arguments by either side

250
00:18:33,560 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 1: as to whether he should or should not disclose the

251
00:18:37,320 --> 00:18:40,760
Speaker 1: details of his reasoning. That may be decided even as

252
00:18:40,800 --> 00:18:44,879
Speaker 1: we speak. But it was First Amendment. It was the

253
00:18:44,960 --> 00:18:51,080
Speaker 1: underlying statute doesn't even prohibit you from regulating communications. And

254
00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:55,040
Speaker 1: this was tasty and ill founded and therefore a violation

255
00:18:55,280 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 1: of due process. What was the Trump administration's argument, Well,

256
00:19:01,320 --> 00:19:05,359
Speaker 1: right on down the line they tried to rebut them

257
00:19:06,320 --> 00:19:12,480
Speaker 1: TikTok's arguments. They said, no, no, we're not banning a

258
00:19:12,520 --> 00:19:17,960
Speaker 1: personal communication. We're only banning the business relationships here, We're

259
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:24,720
Speaker 1: not regulating any individual TikTok user. We're just regulating the

260
00:19:24,800 --> 00:19:30,640
Speaker 1: Apple uh and Google app stores. So it's not personal,

261
00:19:30,720 --> 00:19:34,160
Speaker 1: it's just business. The problem with that was the statute

262
00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:40,120
Speaker 1: says you cannot regulate or prohibit indirectly even any personal communications.

263
00:19:40,720 --> 00:19:45,840
Speaker 1: Jim is TikTok or is Bye Dance fighting Trump's order

264
00:19:46,280 --> 00:19:50,920
Speaker 1: that its sell the business. Interestingly enough, that's a separate

265
00:19:51,440 --> 00:19:55,720
Speaker 1: fight which is yet to be fully engaged. We actually

266
00:19:55,800 --> 00:20:01,160
Speaker 1: have to parallel process underway with respect TikTok. One terms

267
00:20:01,160 --> 00:20:06,600
Speaker 1: of this order to ban transactions, meaning to ban the

268
00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:10,520
Speaker 1: up stores from doing business with TikTok, to ban the

269
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:14,080
Speaker 1: content delivery networks and any payment processors throughout doing any

270
00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:17,720
Speaker 1: business with TikTok separate but were clearly related. Separate from

271
00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:20,920
Speaker 1: that is the effort to force the sale, which arises

272
00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:24,080
Speaker 1: under a completely different statute to Defense Production Act. May

273
00:20:24,119 --> 00:20:27,280
Speaker 1: have heard of the so called Scipious Process the Committee

274
00:20:27,280 --> 00:20:30,680
Speaker 1: on Foreign Investment in the United States and to talk

275
00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:37,080
Speaker 1: about extraordinary powers. The statute related to the Scithious Process

276
00:20:37,280 --> 00:20:42,320
Speaker 1: allows the government to demand the unwinding of an already

277
00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:47,440
Speaker 1: completed purchase or acquisition or investment in this case, the

278
00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:53,320
Speaker 1: seen I think it was purchase of Musically by the way,

279
00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:56,919
Speaker 1: a Chinese company, by Byte Dance by the way, another

280
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:00,639
Speaker 1: Chinese company. So you have this extraordinary situation ship the

281
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,200
Speaker 1: government is claiming the power, of course, one Chinese company

282
00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:09,159
Speaker 1: to divest itself another Chinese company do it retroactively, based

283
00:21:09,200 --> 00:21:12,439
Speaker 1: on the fact that the parent company Light Dance is

284
00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:15,639
Speaker 1: doing business in the United States, so it doesn't have

285
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 1: to be headquartered here, it doesn't have to be incorporated here.

286
00:21:19,640 --> 00:21:22,600
Speaker 1: But because it is doing business in the United States,

287
00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:28,760
Speaker 1: the government claims that power two control its activities in

288
00:21:28,800 --> 00:21:35,880
Speaker 1: the United States, and that process is still underway so far. Interestingly,

289
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:41,560
Speaker 1: TikTok is not challenged that order. In fact, it's cited

290
00:21:41,960 --> 00:21:47,600
Speaker 1: it's ongoing dialogue with the government or prior negotiations with

291
00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:53,000
Speaker 1: the government around Scyphius requirements and the potential sale. TikTok

292
00:21:53,280 --> 00:22:02,240
Speaker 1: cited those discussions as reason to block the AIPA order, saying, hey, look,

293
00:22:02,320 --> 00:22:06,479
Speaker 1: the president here acted prematurely. We've been negotiating the sale,

294
00:22:06,680 --> 00:22:10,760
Speaker 1: We've been trying to deal with their concerns on national security.

295
00:22:11,280 --> 00:22:16,359
Speaker 1: By this uh divestiture arrangement, whatever it turns out to be,

296
00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:21,480
Speaker 1: and now all of a sudden, the President unfairly the process,

297
00:22:21,520 --> 00:22:25,080
Speaker 1: they argue, has cut that process short and jumped right

298
00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: to this band. So very fluid, very complicated situation. Does

299
00:22:32,119 --> 00:22:36,439
Speaker 1: Bye Dances strategy make sense to be fighting Trump in

300
00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:41,000
Speaker 1: court while it pursues approval for a sale? Oh yeah,

301
00:22:41,040 --> 00:22:44,240
Speaker 1: absolutely no No, because I mean the order was the

302
00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:47,080
Speaker 1: order that had taken effect Sunday night, that would have

303
00:22:47,119 --> 00:22:50,000
Speaker 1: been crippling to the company. It would have knocked it

304
00:22:50,040 --> 00:22:53,800
Speaker 1: off with the uh camp stores. It would have prohibited

305
00:22:53,840 --> 00:22:58,719
Speaker 1: any you have downloads of updates uh hood any updates

306
00:22:58,840 --> 00:23:01,920
Speaker 1: send it to strength in the privacy protection surround data.

307
00:23:03,119 --> 00:23:08,840
Speaker 1: It would have cast advertising relationships in the town. No,

308
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:14,800
Speaker 1: I think that UM in its arguments to the court

309
00:23:14,840 --> 00:23:19,040
Speaker 1: on the AIPA order, TikTok made a pretty good arguments.

310
00:23:20,440 --> 00:23:22,760
Speaker 1: They were knocked out of the up store. That would

311
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:28,680
Speaker 1: have been serious injury and that competitive operationally. Last time

312
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:32,120
Speaker 1: we spoke, there was a possibility a couple of companies

313
00:23:32,119 --> 00:23:37,320
Speaker 1: were pursuing Bye Dance TikTok, and then we heard that. Okay,

314
00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:39,520
Speaker 1: it seemed like the deal was ready, but the deal

315
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:43,520
Speaker 1: that was suggested. According to that deal, Bye Dance would

316
00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:47,720
Speaker 1: still own eight of the company, if it still has

317
00:23:47,800 --> 00:23:50,440
Speaker 1: control over the company. If you still have a Chinese

318
00:23:50,600 --> 00:23:53,480
Speaker 1: entity with control of the company, that doesn't seem to

319
00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:57,119
Speaker 1: help the things that Syphius is concerned about. That's a

320
00:23:57,119 --> 00:24:00,560
Speaker 1: good point, and I think many people have basically, you know,

321
00:24:00,920 --> 00:24:05,760
Speaker 1: criticized the deal on that grounds that you know, sort

322
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:07,879
Speaker 1: of an emperor has no closed kind of thing, that

323
00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:11,280
Speaker 1: the deal doesn't actually accomplish what the President said you

324
00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:16,720
Speaker 1: wanted to do. Administration, I think, and they haven't always

325
00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:19,119
Speaker 1: been consistent in how they described this, and they have

326
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:24,480
Speaker 1: always been clear and what they described. There's a conflicting

327
00:24:24,520 --> 00:24:29,320
Speaker 1: statements between what the administration says, what the acquiring companies say,

328
00:24:29,520 --> 00:24:33,560
Speaker 1: what Byte Dance says, what the Chinese government says. Lots

329
00:24:33,560 --> 00:24:39,040
Speaker 1: of gamps description there. I guess the administration is claiming, well,

330
00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:45,000
Speaker 1: Byte dances ownership is US venture capital funding, and you

331
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:49,040
Speaker 1: can't which live at this globalized world still, um so

332
00:24:49,240 --> 00:24:53,200
Speaker 1: Byte Dance is already partly owned by US venture capital

333
00:24:53,840 --> 00:24:58,359
Speaker 1: im entities. So you've had an Oracle twelve point five,

334
00:24:58,640 --> 00:25:04,639
Speaker 1: Walmart seven point five, the US venture capital forty and

335
00:25:05,240 --> 00:25:10,679
Speaker 1: that I guess seeks you up around. Does China have

336
00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:13,920
Speaker 1: a say could China say no, we're not going to

337
00:25:13,960 --> 00:25:19,000
Speaker 1: allow that sale to go through. Yeah, yes, absolutely so,

338
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:22,480
Speaker 1: I mean, as far as I can tell, and it's

339
00:25:22,480 --> 00:25:26,119
Speaker 1: hard to tell from the administration statements because they're not

340
00:25:26,160 --> 00:25:32,320
Speaker 1: always very clear. So far, the administration has not finally

341
00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:36,320
Speaker 1: approved the deal, and I think that deal remains in flux.

342
00:25:37,119 --> 00:25:41,520
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, the Chinese government has not approved the deal,

343
00:25:41,960 --> 00:25:45,679
Speaker 1: and there's been some commentary in the state press in

344
00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:49,840
Speaker 1: China criticizing the deal, which is sometimes a means of

345
00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:52,520
Speaker 1: signaling about what the government is likely to do. So

346
00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:57,879
Speaker 1: the whole deal is, in my opinion, quite tentative, quite uncertain,

347
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:01,600
Speaker 1: and as you say, even if it goes through, it's

348
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:06,800
Speaker 1: not clear that it would really solve the initial problems

349
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:10,120
Speaker 1: raised by the government, if they really were real problems

350
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:13,000
Speaker 1: in the first place. In terms of how data flows,

351
00:26:13,560 --> 00:26:17,919
Speaker 1: TikTok argues that, yes, we collect substantial data by the

352
00:26:17,920 --> 00:26:22,040
Speaker 1: way every other app does too, but we start in

353
00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 1: the United States and we currently have never yet provided

354
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:28,880
Speaker 1: any of it to the Chinese government, and we would

355
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:36,360
Speaker 1: resist efforts to demand it. So very very murky picture,

356
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:39,679
Speaker 1: both on the question of what are the terms of

357
00:26:39,720 --> 00:26:44,639
Speaker 1: the deal and what would the deal really accomplish in

358
00:26:44,760 --> 00:26:48,000
Speaker 1: terms of the stated national security objectives of the administration.

359
00:26:48,520 --> 00:26:50,520
Speaker 1: Some people are referring to this as part of the

360
00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:54,320
Speaker 1: digital Cold War. And the Trump administration has forced the

361
00:26:54,359 --> 00:26:58,320
Speaker 1: sale of an app before, hasn't it. Absolutely. They forced

362
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:03,439
Speaker 1: the unwinding of the dating or back grinder by a

363
00:27:03,560 --> 00:27:07,240
Speaker 1: Chinese company. They forced the unwinding of the sale of

364
00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:12,160
Speaker 1: a company called Patients Like Me to China. So data

365
00:27:12,320 --> 00:27:18,439
Speaker 1: has clearly become a focus of tension in terms of

366
00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:21,639
Speaker 1: foreign investment in the United States. Going way back, the

367
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:25,800
Speaker 1: Defense Production Act started out with concerns that actually Japan

368
00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:30,119
Speaker 1: at the time that Japanese companies were buying too much

369
00:27:30,119 --> 00:27:33,919
Speaker 1: of the American defense production capability. You don't want to

370
00:27:33,960 --> 00:27:37,679
Speaker 1: have your only tank factory owned by foreign investors. You

371
00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:41,160
Speaker 1: don't want to have any company that made military equipment

372
00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:45,440
Speaker 1: owned by foreign investors. That's where this all started years ago.

373
00:27:46,080 --> 00:27:50,760
Speaker 1: Has Trump been taking an increasingly hard line on China

374
00:27:51,920 --> 00:27:56,600
Speaker 1: as the election approaches, Yeah, and in fact they TikTok

375
00:27:57,119 --> 00:28:01,280
Speaker 1: made that argument explicitly in its reef over the weekend,

376
00:28:02,160 --> 00:28:05,960
Speaker 1: uh saying that this has relatively little to do with

377
00:28:06,040 --> 00:28:09,119
Speaker 1: TikTok per se, it actually has relatively little to do

378
00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:14,880
Speaker 1: with concerns about data or censorship or introduction of propaganda

379
00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:20,560
Speaker 1: into the TikTok stream, and that in fact is related

380
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:27,399
Speaker 1: to anti China sentiment which is partly being pumped up

381
00:28:27,520 --> 00:28:30,280
Speaker 1: in the lead up to the to the election. So

382
00:28:30,760 --> 00:28:36,679
Speaker 1: lots of motivation swirling around here um and lots of

383
00:28:36,840 --> 00:28:40,520
Speaker 1: mixed motives. Mixed motives on the part of the government

384
00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:47,120
Speaker 1: don't necessarily condemn its actions, but they do contribute to

385
00:28:47,160 --> 00:28:50,760
Speaker 1: the sense that this is not a well thought out policy,

386
00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:55,560
Speaker 1: and that feeds into TikTok's argument that this is not

387
00:28:56,840 --> 00:29:00,680
Speaker 1: system with due process. Government needs to be more more

388
00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:04,080
Speaker 1: methodical and what it does. The government has responded in

389
00:29:04,400 --> 00:29:06,600
Speaker 1: its brief, it responded and said no, no, We've been

390
00:29:06,680 --> 00:29:11,560
Speaker 1: very consistent. The Secretary of Commerce issued a major determination.

391
00:29:11,800 --> 00:29:18,400
Speaker 1: It's all backed up by fact. But the conflicting and

392
00:29:18,840 --> 00:29:26,400
Speaker 1: incomplete and somewhat ambiguous statements from the administration have certainly

393
00:29:26,400 --> 00:29:29,560
Speaker 1: not helped this case. And what's happening with whee chat.

394
00:29:29,640 --> 00:29:33,440
Speaker 1: We don't hear as much about we chat well. A

395
00:29:33,640 --> 00:29:38,760
Speaker 1: federal court has also issued in order of blocking the

396
00:29:38,760 --> 00:29:44,720
Speaker 1: President's order on we chat. So the President issued in

397
00:29:44,800 --> 00:29:49,680
Speaker 1: August a very similar in effect almost identical order to

398
00:29:49,800 --> 00:29:59,360
Speaker 1: be order on TikTok, and on September a federal district

399
00:29:59,400 --> 00:30:05,600
Speaker 1: courting California issued a preliminary injunction blocking that border. That

400
00:30:05,760 --> 00:30:11,320
Speaker 1: court relied explicitly on the First Amendment issues. UH. The

401
00:30:11,400 --> 00:30:15,520
Speaker 1: case was brought not by we Chat or its Chinese owner,

402
00:30:15,600 --> 00:30:20,480
Speaker 1: ten Cent, but by the wheat Chat Users Alliance, and

403
00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:24,960
Speaker 1: they argued, and the court agreed that we chat had

404
00:30:25,000 --> 00:30:29,360
Speaker 1: become a virtual public square very important words and our

405
00:30:29,440 --> 00:30:33,680
Speaker 1: sort of First Amendment analysis public square uh, and that

406
00:30:33,760 --> 00:30:36,720
Speaker 1: we chat was a virtual public square, and that it

407
00:30:36,840 --> 00:30:40,480
Speaker 1: was for some Chinese Americans and Chinese nationals in the

408
00:30:40,560 --> 00:30:45,600
Speaker 1: United States it was really their only effective way of

409
00:30:45,760 --> 00:30:49,400
Speaker 1: communicating because it was optimized for the Chinese language and

410
00:30:49,440 --> 00:30:54,239
Speaker 1: there wasn't really quite anything adequate to replace it. Um.

411
00:30:54,440 --> 00:30:58,600
Speaker 1: So there's a preliminary injunction blocking the administration there. Now

412
00:30:59,520 --> 00:31:02,360
Speaker 1: you know that first step in both cases, this is

413
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:07,360
Speaker 1: the first step. What will ultimately happen. Will these preliminary

414
00:31:07,880 --> 00:31:11,360
Speaker 1: injunctions be turned into permanent injunctions? Will they be upheld

415
00:31:11,800 --> 00:31:16,280
Speaker 1: by the appeals court? Process completely in my opinion, very

416
00:31:16,280 --> 00:31:20,200
Speaker 1: hard to predict. Thanks Jim, that's Jim Dempsey, executive director

417
00:31:20,240 --> 00:31:23,440
Speaker 1: of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. And that's

418
00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:25,920
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm

419
00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:28,400
Speaker 1: John Brusso, and you're listening to Bloomberg