The snarky reaction to one of Trump’s latest “delusional” Executive Orders is that he’s legalizing bribery. Who could possibly think legalizing bribery is okay? But this time, there may be actual method to his madness. The Executive Order addresses a problem that American businesses face but businesses in other countries do not, which puts enterprises in an untenable position.

But overexpansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses — by our own Government — for routine business practices in other nations not only wastes limited prosecutorial resources that could be dedicated to preserving American freedoms, but actively harms American economic competitiveness and, therefore, national security.

It is therefore the policy of my Administration to preserve the Presidential authority to conduct foreign affairs and advance American economic and national security by eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad.

Let’s say that a contract to provide internet services is up for bid in another nation. Providers from America and a few other nations are in the mix. The local politico informs the potential bidders that the winner of the contract will be the one buying his wife the sweetest ride. The bidders from other nations proffer various automobiles, from luxury to performance, as an inducement to the local boss. After all, it was the local boss who solicited, if not demanded, a bribe, and there is nothing in the laws of their home nations that would make it illegal to tender such a bribe.

Except for the American company, which would be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act if it paid such a bribe. Guess who isn’t getting the contract? Guess who isn’t playing on a level playing field? The law has long put American businesses at an insurmountable disadvantage in doing business in other nations that don’t share our sensibility toward greasing the skids. Even worse, its breadth goes well beyond what we would consider to be a bribe, a quid pro quo, into such ordinary business practices as taking a local official out to dinner to discuss a transaction.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, among other things, says it’s against the law for any U.S. citizen or business to pay a bribe to a foreign official.  The penalties can be staggering, with fines calculated as the amount of income the briber hoped to receive down the road as a result of paying the bribe.  “Any” U.S. citizen means just that: anybody, not just a corporate executive.  A “foreign official” means anyone with a government job — including people working in industries that are government-owned or government-controlled.

“Bribery” includes giving anything of value in the hopes of getting something in return.  It’s really a broad standard.  A bribe doesn’t have to be an explicit tit-for-tat, and it doesn’t have to be just for the purpose of landing a choice contract.  A bribe can be just a nice dinner at a fancy restaurant that might make get you looked on with more favor next time contracts are being awarded.  A bribe can be a “facilitation payment” to a petty bureaucrat, some grease to ensure that you are allowed to do what you are already entitled to do.

If it was a crime for all, including those who would solicit bribes as well as those who would pay them, that would be one thing. But that’s not how the world works, each sovereign nation getting to set its own rules by which business is to be transacted.

But does the president have the authority to “pause” a duly enacted law, even one as problematic as the FCPA?

Since its enactment in 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq.) (FCPA) has been systematically, and to a steadily increasing degree, stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States.  Current FCPA enforcement impedes the United States’ foreign policy objectives and therefore implicates the President’s Article II authority over foreign affairs.

The President’s foreign policy authority is inextricably linked with the global economic competitiveness of American companies.  American national security depends in substantial part on the United States and its companies gaining strategic business advantages whether in critical minerals, deep-water ports, or other key infrastructure or assets.

The hook is they claim president has authority over foreign affairs set forth in Article II of the Constitution, which they argue authorizes the president to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That enforcement “wastes limited prosecutorial resources” is a nonsensical argument, given that Congress already decided that criminalizing foreign corrupt practices was a good use of prosecutorial resources, and the Take Care Clause precludes the president from deciding otherwise. But the FCPA’s link to foreign commerce, which does fall within the president’s purview, has the makings of a far better argument.

There will be outrage, even if limited due to the deluge of daily hourly outrageousness coming out of the Oval Office, focused on Trump making bribery great again. And it is possible, given its source, that the motivation behind this “pause” is less than altruistic. Perhaps Trump Tower Moscow depends on a Bugatti or two? But self-dealing conflicts of interest aside, the FCPA is one of those laws that seems salutary on the surface but, in a world where the business and politicians of other countries suffer no similar limitations, ties the hands of our nation’s companies and no one else’s.