The moment is clear now. Congress passed a law. The Supreme Court upheld it unanimously. And the government ignored both. Nearly a year later, TikTok still operates under the same Chinese ownership lawmakers warned would gravely endanger national security, with a proposed "deal" that likely doesn't comply with the law's original requirements. This isn't a policy debate anymore—it's the definitive proof that regulatory frameworks in tech have shifted from rule-based to relationship-based, with presidential discretion as the only binding force.

The crack appeared just before Inauguration Day 2025, and by year's end, the entire foundation of government-tech governance had fractured. Congress had overwhelmingly passed a TikTok ban bill. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld it. The law was clear: either TikTok divested from its Chinese parent or faced immediate shutdown. But neither happened. Instead, President Biden punted to Trump, Trump delayed enforcement, and TikTok returned with a message thanking him for saving it. Now, nearly a year later, the platform remains operating under ByteDance ownership while a proposed deal targets a January 22nd, 2026 closing date that raises serious questions about whether it will actually comply with what Congress demanded.

This isn't about TikTok anymore. This is about a fundamental shift in how government relates to technology platforms. The TikTok saga proved that regulatory frameworks—the binding rules that enterprises, investors, and builders organize around—are now subordinate to presidential discretion. When Congress acts, when the Supreme Court unanimously agrees, and when none of that matters, you've crossed a threshold. Regulatory frameworks stop being rules and become suggestions.

The collapse of enforcement credibility cascaded throughout 2025. A 43-day government shutdown threw federal agencies into chaos, delayed consumer product approvals, halted space launches, and threatened food access for millions of Americans. FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued naked threats to broadcasters over airing comedy monologues, signaling that content moderation enforcement would now follow political preference rather than law. Elon Musk's DOGE decimated federal capacity—hundreds of thousands of federal workers left or were forced out, USAID was shuttered, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was gutted, and technology talent across agencies fled or was pushed out.

The institutional breakdown was staggering, but incomplete. It's crucial to note what this analysis often misses: democratic institutions held at critical moments. Federal judges across the country blocked Trump administration policies that violated constitutional law. Members of Congress from both parties pushed back on attempts to use government power for political retaliation. Millions of Americans organized and protested across the country. Institutional resistance wasn't nonexistent—but it was asymmetric. The executive branch could override Supreme Court decisions with impunity. Congress issued "tepid statements" but pursued no enforcement. The judiciary could rule, but couldn't execute those rulings.

For the tech industry, the inflection is brutally clear: regulatory assumptions formed over the past 20 years are now invalid. Enterprises have spent two decades building compliance frameworks based on the premise that federal law creates binding obligations. They've budgeted legal teams, governance structures, and operational complexity around the idea that regulatory requirements matter. They've invested in understanding FCC rules, FTC consent decrees, SEC filing requirements, assuming these frameworks would be enforced consistently. The TikTok saga, along with the broader institutional collapse of 2025, proves this assumption is wrong.

Presidential discretion is now the only predictable regulatory vector. That changes everything. Enterprises will need to build relationship-based governance strategies—tracking not legal requirements but political alignments. Startups will find their regulatory risk assessment completely rewritten: compliance no longer hedges against enforcement, it hedges against political visibility. Investors will need to price in governance risk that's entirely contingent on electoral cycles and executive preference. And the professionals who spent years mastering regulatory compliance now face a landscape where the rules matter less than the relationships.

The question facing 2026 is whether any of this reverses. Congressional midterm positioning will likely drive posturing from both parties about "restoring institutional integrity," but actual enforcement capacity has been decimated. The agencies that would coordinate regulatory action have been hollowed out. The willingness to hold executive officials accountable has been tested and found inadequate. What we're watching is the transition from a rule-of-law system to one where political discretion is the governing framework, with the TikTok saga as the clearest proof point.

The inflection point is behind us. Government enforcement credibility has collapsed, and with it, the regulatory assumptions that governed tech platform operations for two decades. For decision-makers and enterprises, the immediate implication is urgent: your regulatory compliance strategies are no longer sufficient hedges against government action. For investors, governance risk just became the primary valuation variable. For builders, compliance planning shifted from legal to political. The next milestone: whether the 2026 Congressional midterms create enough political pressure to restore rule-based governance, or whether 2025's shift to discretionary enforcement becomes the permanent framework. Monitor federal enforcement actions starting January 2026—they'll reveal which path we've taken.