Reading news about the TikTok situation can be really confusing. Is this a policy with direction, or just a reaction to put out fires as they arise?

They were shouting, "Chinese apps are stealing all the information from Americans, so this is a serious national security threat," but when the dust settled, it turned out that well-connected people were sharing the stakes. Is this strategy or just a cycle?

Now that I'm in my 50s, it becomes clearer. Political rhetoric always comes quickly, but the benefits always arrive slowly.

No, to be honest, the benefits don't come to us.

Who Benefited?

In January, TikTok transitioned to a structure where it separated its U.S. operations from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to establish a U.S.-focused joint venture to maintain its services in the U.S.

This is the $14 billion joint venture 'TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC'. Looking at the equity structure of the U.S. entity reveals the answer.

Oracle 15% — Larry Ellison. The very same person who was sitting at Trump's inauguration. He didn't just take a stake; he also secured a cloud infrastructure contract under the guise of a data security partnership. This isn't just an investment; it's a long-term revenue structure.

Silver Lake 15% — a global private equity firm. They bought undervalued assets at a discount due to political uncertainty. This is a platform with 170 million users, not just 1.7 million. The ROI calculations are very straightforward. Such opportunities don't come to just anyone; they come to those who are already in line.

MGX 15% — the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Why is Middle Eastern capital involved here, neither American nor Chinese? This is a textbook example of geopolitical positioning. The Middle East has squeezed into the gap created by U.S.-China tensions.

Where Did the Law Go?

The law created by Congress (PAFACA) was clear. If they don't sell, there will be a ban. There was one conditional extension. But Trump extended it three times through executive orders.

Law professors shouted that it was illegal. Democratic lawmakers issued statements saying, "He ignored the law." The result? Nothing changed. Big tech companies didn't take legal action because they were wary of Trump.

ICE enforcement follows the same pattern. It's true that law enforcement is necessary.

But if the approach goes too far, it backfires. If the goal becomes just to increase numbers, that's not policy; it's performance. The TikTok ban was the same. If real security was the goal, they should have cut off the algorithm first. They left the algorithm as ByteDance's and just changed the ownership to American names. Is this a solution?

We all know that defense contractors are quickly depleting their weapon stocks and then producing more; this cycle continues. On the surface, it seems like an efficient cycle, but coldly speaking, it's a structure that can only operate if tensions are maintained. The TikTok deal is similar. Political tension is necessary for such 'solution deals' to emerge. Oracle's ability to become a security partner was also due to that tension. There are no such opportunities in a peaceful market.

So my thought is that we need to see what is being built anew right now. The Democrats made the law, and the Republicans ignored that law while passing stakes to their people. Neither side is clean. And as always, the burden falls on ordinary households.

We are the ones whose data is being stolen, we are the ones facing rising prices, and the tension and anxiety always come to us quickly.

"Did Trump save TikTok?" Yes. But looking at the equity structure reveals for whom he saved it.