Trump Backs Musk Or Ellison For TikTok Deal

President Donald Trump expressed support for tech magnates Elon Musk and Larry Ellison potentially acquiring TikTok, outlining a controversial 50-50 ownership structure between the U.S. and a buyer. His remarks shed new light on the evolving negotiations regarding the social media platform’s future in the United States.

“I would be if he wanted to buy it,” Trump said when asked if Musk, owner of X, would be a suitable candidate. He extended similar support to Oracle chairman Larry Ellison, who was present at a White House press conference announcing a $500 billion artificial intelligence initiative.

Trump detailed his proposal, which involves granting a “permit” to a buyer in exchange for half of TikTok’s ownership. “Buy it and give half to the United States of America, and we’ll give you the permit,” he said. “They’ll have a great partner.”

Ellison responded positively, stating, “It sounds like a good deal to me, Mr. President.”

The TikTok Dilemma

TikTok, owned by Chinese parent company ByteDance, faces mounting scrutiny over national security concerns. Any resolution would require Chinese government approval and adherence to U.S. laws, including the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Trump’s proposal suggests a joint venture between the U.S. and a buyer, but experts warn such a partnership might not meet legal requirements. The law mandates a “qualified divestiture” to sever ByteDance’s operational ties to TikTok and eliminate foreign control over sensitive data and algorithms.

“An equal partnership doesn’t seem to align with the law’s intent to remove foreign influence,” said Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus of law at Case Western Reserve University.

Financial and Strategic Implications

Despite legal challenges, Trump remains optimistic about the financial potential of a TikTok deal. “Whether you like TikTok or not, we’re going to make a lot of money,” he said at a rally.

Dan Ives, global head of tech research at Wedbush Securities, noted that TikTok is a strategic bargaining chip in broader U.S.-China trade negotiations. He predicts multiple bids, with Musk potentially leading the charge.

Musk, however, voiced his reservations about a ban on TikTok. “I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time,” he wrote on X. “But the current situation where TikTok operates in America, while X is banned in China, is unbalanced. Something needs to change.”

Oracle’s existing role as a hosting provider for TikTok could also position it as a key player in any deal, either independently or in collaboration with Musk.

Legal Hurdles and Potential Challenges

Constitutional law experts remain skeptical of the proposed 50-50 model. Jared Carter, a constitutional law professor at Vermont Law School, argued that such an arrangement would violate the spirit of laws addressing national security concerns.

“The law requires divestiture to an American company,” Carter said. “A 50-50 split would not resolve national security risks.”

Nicholas Creel, a business law professor at Georgia College & State University, added that TikTok’s continued operation under foreign control could lead to its ban. “The only way to change that is for Congress to amend the law,” Creel stated.

Timeline and Executive Action

On Monday, Trump issued an executive order delaying the enforcement of the TikTok ban for 75 days to explore potential buyers. Legal experts predict challenges to the order, arguing it exceeds presidential authority.

“The law explicitly requires the attorney general to enforce the ban,” Creel explained. “Delays are only allowed if substantial progress toward divestiture is demonstrated.”

Despite the legal complexities, Entin noted the limited pool of parties with standing to challenge the deal. Congress and TikTok’s competitors, such as Meta and X, could potentially file lawsuits, but it remains unclear if they will act.

Conclusion

As the 75-day window unfolds, the future of TikTok in the U.S. remains uncertain. Trump’s unconventional proposal underscores the complexities of balancing economic interests, national security, and legal frameworks in the high-stakes negotiations over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.