I don’t know what’s more hilarious: (a) Trump energetically championing executive-decreed sanctions against TikTok in 2020 on national-security grounds due to its being a Chinese cyber-espionage operation, but now wavering on the enforcement of a properly enacted law that does what he wanted done five years ago (except now the problem is significantly worse in terms of the Xi regime’s massive data collection); or (b) Biden, who routinely and lawlessly reaches out to decide things he has no authority to decide (even to this day with the ludicrous, meaningless proclamation that the Equal Rights Amendment is now in the Constitution), suddenly deciding that he’ll punt on TikTok divestiture and let Trump — you know, the Great Threat to Democracy — make the decision . . . knowing, of course, that this sets Trump up for a controversy on his first day in office.

In any event, it’s been suggested that there’s a middle ground here: The statute allows the president to issue a one-time, 90-day extension. But it’s not the escape hatch it sounds like, at least if taken seriously. The Congressional Research Service analysis of the statute explains:

The President can grant a one-time extension of up to 90 additional days when a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, there is evidence of “significant” progress toward executing the divestiture, and there are legally binding agreements in place to enable the divestiture.

As I understand it, these conditions have not been met — at least as of now. In fact, the China-controlled owner of TikTok, ByteDance, has claimed that divestiture is not a practical option. While I think that’s ridiculous, I don’t see how ByteDance can have taken that position and simultaneously both show significant progress toward divestiture and have a legally binding agreement in place.

I would note that in Trump’s first term, I found it deeply frustrating that, after he campaigned long and loud about the disastrousness of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Trump recertified the deal multiple times. As I observed at the time, the preconditions for recertification, by statute, were (a) that Iran is “transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement” and (b) that continuing the JCPOA is “vital to the national security interests of the United States.” Neither of these things could be said with a straight face. They were represented nonetheless.

I’m betting on a 90-day TikTok extension.