In 2020, the Trump administration acknowledged a unanimous decision about TikTok, a platform seen as manipulative and under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), presenting itself as mere entertainment. Fast forward to 2024, and Congress reacted to these concerns by passing a bipartisan law that required TikTok to be sold to American owners or face a complete ban. The Supreme Court backed this law, making the situation straightforward: sell it or stop it altogether. There’s really no middle ground.
Currently, though, the Trump administration is suggesting “framework transactions” that sidestep the law’s intentions. This proposal would let the Chinese ownership maintain control of the board while allowing a group of American investors to lease the algorithm, creating a facade of compromise. However, this isn’t a solution; it’s more like giving in. Licensing doesn’t equate to ownership, and oversight isn’t the same as control. If the Chinese government can still tweak algorithms from Beijing, they hold onto a powerful tool to sway American public opinion and wage psychological operations against the West. The administration itself seems aware of these issues, promoting Oracle’s potential to “fully inspect” algorithms; yet, such inspections might not truly address the continuous influence of ByteDance, the parent company.
There’s real concern here, not just a theoretical one. We’ve already witnessed TikTok inundating American feeds with anti-Semitic content after events like the assassination of Charlie Kirk and United Healthcare President Brian Thompson. The platform often amplifies messages that criticize China while simultaneously stirring up internal conflict within the U.S., referencing the Uyghur genocide, the Hong Kong crackdown, and the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Interestingly, the kind of toxic content that flies on TikTok here is banned in China itself. This is what information warfare looks like. Allowing China to manipulate TikTok’s algorithms means permitting them to shape perceptions of our children.
If the CCP can control TikTok amid a crisis—say, during a conflict over Taiwan—they could drown American users in pro-CCP narratives, distorting the reality of the situation and swaying public opinion in a way that makes the U.S. look indifferent. It’s a disconcerting scenario, but it seems like the CCP is counting on the complacency of American leaders.
Moreover, it’s troubling that Congress spoke with unified intent about the sale, and the court endorsed that stance. Yet, instead of adhering to the law, the administration appears set on redefining “sale” into something much less stringent. This amounts to a superficial restructuring, leaving the core technology of TikTok firmly in China’s grip. Such a deal doesn’t uphold the law; it effectively bypasses it.
We shouldn’t ignore the broader strategic implications of accepting a deal that masquerades as pragmatism. By endorsing this framework, Washington inadvertently sends a message that American national security is negotiable, much like previous compromises over technology sales, where concessions led to further demands from Beijing. For those Americans who expect conservatives to stand firm against the CCP, this situation is likely to bring disappointment.
Ultimately, this transaction fails to respect the established law and doesn’t safeguard the American public. Instead, it allows China’s influence to persist, undermining congressional authority and the principles of sovereignty that conservatives typically champion. Would we have permitted the Soviet Union to script our nightly news during the Cold War? So why should we let the CCP have a similar role in shaping today’s media environment?
The time for cautious approaches is over. Conservatives in Congress shouldn’t remain passive while this deal is dressed up as lawful compliance. TikTok represents a genuine national security threat, necessitating a full sale without any minority stakes, algorithm leases, or superficial agreements. Anything less is a betrayal of the law and a capitulation to the CCP.
