TikTok Saved—or Sold: A Reckoning of U.S.–China Power Politics

In Madrid this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dropped a bombshell: the United States and China have agreed on a framework deal that would allow TikTok to remain operational in the U.S., through a transition to U.S.-controlled ownership. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are slated to speak on Friday to finalize the arrangement. Web traffic paused. Headlines everywhere: “TikTok Saved—For Now.” But as always in politics, the deal is far sticker than the PR.

First, let’s parse what exactly happened. Congress passed a law in 2024 mandating ByteDance, TikTok’s Beijing-based parent, sell off its U.S. operations or face a ban. A deadline loomed: September 17. Enforcement stalled when Trump, despite the law, delayed the ban three times. Now, in Madrid, negotiators hit pause—not to negotiate TikTok on its merits, but to trade it like another chip in a broader economic chess game. Bessent was blunt: China had to drop demands for tariff relief in exchange for treating TikTok as negotiable currency. In his words: “They didn’t want it to close… we changed their framing.” KSL+1

That’s the structural irony here: TikTok is being treated simultaneously as a threat to national security—and a bargaining chip in trade talks. It’s the perfect metaphor for the hollow center of modern geopolitics: values sold, principles traded, and platforms weaponized.

The agreement remains vague. Bessent assures that national security concerns are “addressed,” while preserving TikTok’s “Chinese characteristics” — soft power attributes Chinese officials cherish. The mechanics? Still opaque. ByteDance may retain a stake below 20%, while U.S. firms like Oracle, Blackstone, Andreessen Horowitz, and Silver Lake may acquire the majority. But details—including whether TikTok's recommendation algorithm—the heart of the app—will truly be disentangled from Chinese control—remain unsettled. The Washington Post+1

The proposal reflects the art of plausible deniability: TikTok looks U.S.-controlled on paper; it may remain subtly beholden to Beijing in substance. Which brings us to the Trump–Xi call scheduled for Friday. That phone call is the real black-box test. Can they craft a public narrative that sells TikTok as patriotic, U.S.-owned, while China keeps enough “characteristics” to satisfy internal elites? That’s the sleight-of-hand. And it’s quite fitting that this kabuki play of economic diplomacy is centered around one of America’s most consumed cultural exports.

There’s political theater too. Trump has insisted TikTok helped him win the 2024 election and continues to champion it publicly, even as many in his own party call it spyware. Now he may keep it alive to deliver both policy theater and political theater—an asset leveraged for American youth, while still using it as cover in tariff off-ramps and trade negotiations. Politico+1

Understanding what’s at stake means acknowledging the scale. TikTok commands 170 million American users and brings in around $10 billion in U.S. revenue annually. It isn’t just another app—it’s a piece of cultural infrastructure, especially among young people. Shutting it down would have triggered massive backlash. So a ban became unthinkable. But a divestiture disguised as nationalist triumph? That’s far easier to spin—provided you can convince Congress and the public this deal preserves security while sustaining the fun. Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

Yet let’s be clear: skepticism isn’t betrayal. The law passed in 2024 requires no foreign adversary to hold more than 20%—but ruling elites may still try to leak control via algorithms licensed rather than broken. A licensed algorithm is still an algorithm. Beijing may still influence content, trends, or data. The devil in the regulatory detail may undermine the spirit of the law. That’s why congressional oversight matters—and why any deal will need bipartisan scrutiny. The Washington Post+1

Consider the national security spin. Bessent says the U.S. only cares about security; China cares about soft power. But aren’t algorithms central to how persuasion works today? You can sanitize ownership on paper, but if Beijing still controls the content engine—its soft power becomes our vulnerability. Congress’ law bans any operational ties of the algorithm to ByteDance, but executives have apparently tried to circumvent that by licensing rather than handing over the code. That’s the key question Columnists should hammer: is this true separation—or an elaborate accounting trick? Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

There’s also a broader lesson. The U.S.-China relationship has become a negotiation across multiple fronts—tariffs, chips, fentanyl precursor control, investor access. TikTok is no longer about who owns the app; it’s about whether diplomacy will continue as kabuki theater rather than transparent policy. Both nations are hedging, jockeying, and using deadlines like September 17 or Nov. 10 to drive urgency—deadlines subject to artificial extensions. Bessent himself said a 90-day extension is possible—but only after Moscow-Red carpet theatre in Madrid. KSL+1

If the Trump–Xi call on Friday does finalize terms, the U.S. might officially say: “Look, we kept TikTok alive but fixed the security problem.” China might say: “We preserved our cultural product and prevented a hostile takeover.” Win-win, right? For both parties, yes. For democracy, data privacy, and regulatory clarity? Not so much.

TikTok will emerge in the U.S. as something of a Frankenstein creation: American on the outside, potentially Chinese in hidden arteries. The deal may satisfy legal letter, but risk violating public trust. If algorithms can be leased—or repackaged—national security remains symbolic. And if Congress allows an opaque deal without tough oversight hearings, then the divestiture law becomes moot.

This isn’t just about social media. It's about whether the U.S. still insists on real separation when the law demands it—or settles for headline separation with de facto entanglements. It is whether national security means dividing algorithms, or just reassigning board seats. It’s whether we safeguard citizens—or perform politics.

Tomorrow’s call between Trump and Xi could deliver the golden veneer of compromise. But beneath the polish, the public deserves to ask: Who really controls the feed Americans scroll? Who holds the keys to the influence machine? And how much of this is truly about citizen protection—or just preserving an app beloved by millions?

TikTok may survive—but America risks losing more than data control. We risk losing the principle that law means something deeper than optics. We risk corporate backrooms making decisions that Congress intended to forbid. We risk turning a national security measure into a publicity moment. Unbelievable? Perhaps. But that’s how diplomacy now works: through frames, deadlines, plausible extensions, and tweets. And on Friday, when Trump and Xi speak, we’ll see whether this is genuine divestiture—or just another chapter in a long tradition of Washington’s empty symbolism.