Trump’s TikTok Deal EXPOSED as Pay-to-Play SHAM?!?!
December 27, 2025
19,931
2,807
170
14.94%
Search the Record
IndexedEvery word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
Legal Af Episodes Around December 27, 2025
See what was published immediately before and after this episode.
9:32Now PlayingTrump’s TikTok Deal EXPOSED as Pay-to-Play SHAM?!?!
YouTube Description
as posted by the channelBrian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian dissect the TikTok deal signed December 18 that averts the ban mandated by Biden-era legislation requiring ByteDance to fully divest by January 21, 2025. Despite Trump's repeated executive orders extending the deadline, the new ownership structure reveals ByteDance retaining 19.9% ownership while three "managing investors"—Oracle (15%), Silver Lake (15%), and UAE-backed MGX (15%)—control 45% collectively, with the remaining 30.1% held by affiliates of existing ByteDance investors. Brian questions how this constitutes "complete divestiture" when ByteDance retains nearly 20% and keeps the algorithm—the "secret sauce" that raised national security concerns originally. The hosts highlight major conflicts: Oracle's Larry Ellison is a Trump mega-donor whose family controls Paramount Skydance and is bidding for Warner Bros., MGX is backed by the UAE government that also funded Trump's crypto ventures, and GOP mega-donor Jeff Yass is involved. Shant calls this the "definition of pay to play"—foreign government influence was supposed to be eliminated, yet you have Chinese company retention, UAE state-backed investment, and multiple Trump supporters with ownership stakes. The hosts note Trump wants TikTok alive because he believes it helped his campaign and will benefit the midterms. Brian explains that "divest" means to deprive someone of an asset or sell off an investment, yet ByteDance is essentially licensing the entity while maintaining substantial control. The hosts predict congressional Republicans will do nothing despite the deal violating the spirit of the divestiture law, as they won't risk upsetting Trump. Brian and Shant question whether legislators on either side will stand up and declare this arrangement inadequate, noting the irony of a deal that was supposed to eliminate foreign influence instead creating a complicated ownership structure involving foreign governments, billionaire Trump allies, and the original Chinese parent company.
Kabateck LLPCall 184474CIVIL for a free case evaluation or visit us at
Legal AF Substack
Follow Legal AF on Bluesky
Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky
Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here
Guests & Subjects Covered
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.