First, the quote, then I’ll explain why the author may not quite qualify. From a brief filed with SCOTUS concerning TikTok v. Garland, the suit in which social media giant TikTok claims a statute to force ByteDance, the Chinese company owning TikTok, to sell TikTok to an American company is unconstitutional. The brief is from Counsel of Record D. John Sauer, who is asking that the law implementation be ordered delayed until his client, Mr Trump, assumes office:
Further, President Trump is the founder of another resoundingly successful social-media platform, Truth Social. This gives him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted to be exercised in this case—the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social-media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans, based in large part on concerns about disfavored content on that platform. President Trump is keenly aware of the historic dangers presented by such a precedent. For example, shortly after the Act was passed, Brazil banned the social-media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) for more than a month, based in large part on that government’s disfavor of political speech on X. See, e.g., Brazil’s Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Social Media Site X, CBS NEWS (Oct. 8, 2024). …
Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged. See, e.g., Executive Order No. 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, 85 Fed. Reg. 48637, 48637 (Aug. 6, 2020); Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd., 85 Fed. Reg. 51297, 51297 (Aug. 14, 2020). Indeed, President Trump’s first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor.
Why does Mr Sauer possibly not qualify for this nomination, in light of the ludicrous paragraphs above? Because he’s working for someone else, as lawyers are wont, and in this case it’s … Mr. Trump himself. It is entirely possible that these paragraphs, and a few others conveying similar sentiments, were written at the direction of Mr Trump himself. If this is true, I am uncertain as to whether Mr Trump may be nominated for an award concerning an absolute and embarrassing, not to mention potentially phony, devotion to, ah, Mr Trump.
A proposed trophy: probably molded plastic. No artist listed.
But given the quality of these incorrect claims – for one, Mr Trump’s Truth Social, by all reports, is failing rapidly – one cannot ignore Mr Sauer’s claims to the award, so, if an occasion ever arises in which the trophy in question is actually awarded, a determination of qualification will be made then.
