Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

TikTok: The Aftermath

Opinion

TikTok: The Aftermath
File:TikTok app.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

When Congress passed PAFACA (Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications), they should have considered the consequences. They apparently didn’t.

With approximately 170 million users, what did politicians think would happen when TikTok actually went dark? Did Congress consider the aftermath? President Trump is trying hard to find a way to keep TikTok from going dark permanently, but he likely won’t succeed.


Given that PAFACA demands applications (Apps) owned/controlled by foreign adversaries be banned, there’s nothing short of ByteDance selling its interest in TikTok to satisfy the current law. There are no halfway measures. According to the law, countries like China cannot hold ownership of apps doing business in the American market.

The question: Will ByteDance sell TikTok? Why should they? Moreover, did Congress think the Chinese would acquiesce to PAFACA? It is worth pointing out: The nexus for PAFACA came from the CIA.

Testifying before Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency warned politicians that companies such as TikTok, which are owned by foreign adversaries, pose a threat to national security. Congress bought it hook-line and sinker.

Still, given the number of users who would be adversely impacted by a shutdown of TikTok—one must ask: What was Congress thinking? Was it all about anti-Chinese sentiment and the coming election?

The seminal question: What if politicians voted against anti-Chinese legislation? Effectively, those politicians would have faced massive criticism as being Chinese sympathizers, possibly costing them their respective elections.

So, the safe vote was to support anti-Chinese legislation—and damn any future consequences. For those politicians, the future consequences are now at hand. It was inevitable that PAFACA would eventually take effect. However, at the time of the vote, there weren’t any real-world consequences, at least not until TikTok went dark on January 19th.

Oddly, President Trump, who has access to the same CIA threat assessment, has pitched a joint Chinese/American ownership proposal. The President doesn’t see Chinese ownership as the threat the CIA does.

Once TikTok went dark, even temporarily—PAFACA became REAL. There’s no going back. Politicians must now face the aftermath of their anti-Chinese vote.

Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield. A list of publications: “Cultural Revolution,” “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming,” “Treason,” “11 Days,” “First Premise,” “GOP’s Power Grab,” “Guilty,” “Comey’s Deceit,” and “False Narratives.”


Read More

Digital generated image of green semi transparent AI word on white circuit board visualizing smart technology.

What can the success of SEMATECH teach us about winning the AI race? Explore how a bold U.S. public-private partnership revived the semiconductor industry—and why a similar model could be key to advancing AI innovation today.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

A Proven Playbook for AI Leadership: Lessons from America’s Chip Comeback

Imagine waking up to this paragraph in your favorite newspaper:

The willingness of the U.S. government to eschew partisanship and undertake a bold experiment -- an experiment based on cooperation as opposed to traditional procurement, and with accountability standards rooted in trust instead of elaborate regulations -- has led the U.S. to a position of preeminence in an industry which is vital to our nation's security and economic well-being.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less
News control room
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying

Non‑Partisan Doesn’t Mean Unbiased: Why America Keeps Getting This Wrong

For as long as I’ve worked in democracy reform, I’ve watched people use non‑partisan and non‑biased as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. This confusion has distorted how Americans judge the credibility of the democracy reform movement, journalists, and even one another. We have created an impossible expectation that anyone who claims to be non‑partisan must also be free of bias.

Non‑partisanship, at its core, is not taking sides in political debates or endorsing a party, candidate, or ideology. It creates space for fair, balanced dialogue accessible to multiple perspectives. Nonpartisan environments encourage discussion and explanation of various viewpoints.

Keep ReadingShow less