The Thursday night press release announcing the joint venture appears to be the only information that will be officially released about the change in TikTok’s management, an app that has more than 170 million U.S. users. As of 4 p.m. ET on January 23, there appear to be no updates related to TikTok on the White House website or on the press pages of the three newly named lead investors—Silverlake, Oracle, and MGX. Oracle, a publicly traded company, shows no new filings on the SEC website.
The details of the TikTok deal may never be known, and Congress and the American people are left with more questions than answers about what actually transpired.
The saga of TikTok matters because it encapsulates every abusive practice of the Trump administration: unprecedented nonenforcement of the law, sweeping claims of executive power, an opaque process enriching some Trump favorites, a deal that may not comply with the law, and total secrecy—all while Congress says nothing. Regardless of how Americans feel about banning TikTok, President Trump’s actions on this were among his first as president, and his handling of this deal is emblematic of the assault on the rule of law that has defined his second term.
The TikTok saga is a laundry list of the Trump administration’s preferred abuses
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was passed by Congress on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, signed by President Joe Biden, and upheld by the Supreme Court. The law took effect on January 19, 2025, but President Trump has refused to enforce it, promising after the 2024 election to save TikTok from the legislation. His first batch of executive orders included one that paused enforcement of the TikTok ban for 75 days and directed the attorney general to issue letters promising not to prosecute companies that let TikTok back online. These actions blatantly violated the letter of the law, which includes no mechanism for presidential delay. It immediately signaled Trump’s willingness to flaunt the government’s legal authority and ignore his own constitutional duty as president to ensure laws are “faithfully executed.”
Next, the president claimed unprecedented executive powers to justify his actions. In July, following Freedom of Information Act litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice released the letters it sent to companies promising not to prosecute them if they restored TikTok. The department argued that enforcing the TikTok ban would impede President Trump’s duty to protect national security and U.S. foreign affairs—an argument that Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith called “an astounding assertion of executive power—maybe the broadest I have ever seen any president or Justice Department make, ever, in any context.” Trump issued a total of five separate orders delaying enforcement of the TikTok ban.
When a TikTok divestment deal was finally announced, the selection of the three managing investors benefited one of Trump’s supporters and foreign governments that have been trying to curry favor with the president. It is unclear how these lead investors were selected to purchase TikTok despite reported higher offers from others. The deal reportedly values TikTok at $14 billion—far below what analysts believe it is worth. There are many questions that remain unanswered about how the managing investors were selected and how the valuation was determined.
What’s more, the TikTok deal may not meet the law’s requirements. While it seemingly addresses foreign ownership limits and data sharing, the law also requires no operational relationship with former owners, specifically regarding the content recommendation algorithm. The press release states, “The Joint Venture will retrain, test, and update the content recommendation algorithm on U.S. user data. The content recommendation algorithm will be secured in Oracle’s U.S. cloud environment” but provides no additional information that allows observers to judge if the law’s requirement has been met. The press release does confirm that “TikTok global’s U.S. entities will manage global product interoperability and certain commercial activities, including e-commerce, advertising, and marketing.” That means ByteDance—or BD TikTok USA LLC or TT Commerce & Global Services, as they are referred to in the newly updated TikTok Terms of Service and Privacy Policy—will continue running advertising for TikTok USDS. Since that is how the site makes its money, this almost certainly constitutes the “maintenance of any operational relationship” with “formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary” that is prohibited by the law.
The Trump administration negotiated this deal in near total secrecy. The law does not require disclosure, and the U.S. secretary of the treasury has called the agreement “commercial terms between two private parties,” which seems to indicate these terms will never be made public. Beyond compliance with the law, there are very real and important questions that need to be answered about the new TikTok USDS. The press release states, “The safeguards provided by the Joint Venture will also cover CapCut, and Lemon8, and a portfolio of other apps and websites in the U.S” but does not list those apps and websites. The TikTok ban law names TikTok but it also names ByteDance and includes all of its apps, of which there are at least 10 more in the United States that could be affected—those that Apple removed from the app store in the brief period when it complied with the law. In another case, and one of real public interest, Trump’s September executive order mentions that “[t]he Attorney General or the Attorney General’s designee shall serve as the United States Government’s representative under the Framework Agreement,” but there has been no further information on that U.S. government representative and any corporate powers or information they may be granted. Finally, there is no information about any fee the U.S. government would be paid for brokering the deal or the possibility that the U.S. government could take an ownership stake in the new entity, known as a “golden share,” which this administration has now taken in several companies. Americans and Congress alike will probably remain in the dark about whether the deal complies with the law, the scope of government involvement in this new entity, and even whether the government will take money or an ownership stake in TikTok USDS.
Unfortunately, the law has no mechanism to ensure the divestment meets its requirements. It only requires the president to certify compliance with the law, which Trump did in his September executive order with minimal details and many open questions remaining. There are few if any legal avenues to pursue since few entities—possibly only TikTok—have standing to sue if the deal fails to comply with the law.
All this has happened with nary a peep from Congress, which passed this law overwhelmingly—with Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) one of the few raising many of the unanswered questions about the TikTok deal. The lack of members of Congress willing to call out the president for ignoring a law they themselves passed is disappointing, but unsurprising. Beyond partisanship, the executive branch’s flaunting of the law while Congress does nothing has shredded the latter’s credibility. Congress has an opportunity to demand details about the deal, and they should do so immediately.
We may never know what this TikTok deal entails, how it happened, or if it is legally compliant. The Trump administration could and should release all the details and participate in congressional oversight hearings. Even though the deal has closed, these questions still deserve to be answered, and they represent a roadmap for future congressional investigations about abuse of power, secrecy, and flaunting existing laws—all the hallmarks Americans have come to expect from this administration. Should the questions of the deal’s compliance with the law remain unanswered, a future administration should direct the Department of Justice to examine the deal and its legality. Congress and the American people deserve the truth; a future Congress should seek to uncover it, and a future president should ensure that U.S. law is complied with, even if—especially if—a previous president ignored them.