Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

Opinion

Trump’s Gambit: Trade Tariff Relief For a TikTok Sale

TikTok icon on a phone.

Getty Images, 5./15 WEST

You know things aren’t going well in the negotiations for the U.S. operations of TikTok when President Trump has to bribe the Chinese government with billions in tariff relief.

But that’s exactly what was reported out of the White House. President Trump is willing to give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) billions in tariff relief if they pressured TikTok to sell its U.S. operations before the April 5th deadline.


What this indicates—ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, of its own volition has no desire to sell its U.S. operations.

The question: Can Donald Trump bribe the CCP into forcing ByteDance to sell?

It is worth stated: President Trump’s gambit has merit. Any company doing business in China, especially one based in China, does so under the oversight of the CCP. So, theoretically Trump’s tariff relief could sway the CCP to act on his behalf as his advocate with ByteDance ownership.

The downside: Donald Trump had to sweeten the pot considerably to get a deal done.

It should tell everyone ByteDance ownership’s doesn’t intend to sell its U.S. TikTok operations. Only under extreme duress (threats of retribution) by the CCP is any deal possible. But, even then it’s a crap shoot.

The same fundamental conditions exist as before.

ByteDance is a global business. What’s more, its business model is predicated on the success of its TikTok product line and that product line’s success is directly tied to TikTok’s algorithm.

Ultimately, it’s all about TikTok’s algorithm.

At stake for ByteDance, if they sell their U.S. operations in TikTok, is opening the door to competition to their entire global enterprise. It’s a bad deal for ByteDance.

After all, Intellectual Property (IP) is the lifeblood of every technology company. ByteDance’s TikTok is no different. It’s why one would expect ByteDance to do everything in its power to protect its IP, its algorithm, even if they have to stand up to the CCP.

Still, one can’t under estimate the influence of the CCP.

It’s been reported, the CCP has frozen all state business with CK-Hutchison Holdings after the Hong Kong based conglomerate agreed to sell it majority held stake in the two ports bordering the Panama Canal to U.S. based BlackRock.

Purportedly, the CCP was not happy with the deal and has engaged in retaliatory actions against CK-Hutchison Holdings.

President Trump’s tariff gambit is likely seeking to take advantage of the CCP’s willingness to pressure companies into making business decisions that benefit China.

With the April 5th deadline fast approaching—we will know shortly if President Trump’s gambit pays off.

If it does it came at a steep price.

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

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less