The powers delegated to the Executive don’t generally require a good explanation. “Principles” are handled at the ballot box.

If that's what you think, you should really learn more about government. I don't think you have a clue.

Many, many powers falling under executive branch (and agencies') regulatory authority, which Congress does not go into N-th level detail about how to implement, have to go through significant public and internal review, and have good explanation.

If you're unfamiliar with this, you should read:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...

We are talking about two different things. Legislation is different from the inherent powers delegated by the Constitution. The Executive certainly can act in many ways without explaining itself to and obtaining authorization from Congress.

It seems reasonable to assume that you’re familiar with this concept, so I’ll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

Executive agencies have to obey the Administrative Procedures Act which is not a high bar and yet the current administration doesn't always manage to clear it; it has had several policies turned back by SCOTUS for not being able to come up with a facially valid reason.

Sure, the executive has constitutional powers, but the powers used in this WeChat ban come from the National Emergency act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, not the constitution. So I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that you’re talking about constitutional powers, which are not at issue here. Powers created by legislation are constrained by the statutes themselves and Administrative Procedure Act requirements.

They often do. Trumps own supreme court ruled that this year.

“ Did Trump lawfully repeal the Obama-era order that shielded young immigrants who were brought to this country as children?

No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts. He said that while the president had the legal authority to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, his administration failed to give a reasoned explanation for ending a policy that encouraged about 700,000 immigrants to register with the government to obtain work permits and avoid deportation. ”

And that was just because the Trump administration didn't manage to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which just requires the executive to provide a reason.

The standard of review for free speech cases are way, way higher than the APA. The APA just means the executive can't blatantly lie about why it did enacted some regulation, and has to come up with a facially valid reason. The standard under the 1st Amendment requires a good reason.

Implementing restrictions on trade and financial transactions with Venezuela and North Korea? What a novel idea.