Powerful Republican poses potential roadblock to Trump-backed plan for saving TikTok

New York Post - Mar 18th, 2025

Oracle's attempt to secure a deal with TikTok faces a significant obstacle as Senator Tom Cotton opposes any agreement not adhering to US legislation mandating full divestiture from Chinese ownership. With the divestiture deadline approaching, Cotton's stance could derail efforts to house TikTok's data on Oracle servers. Despite Oracle and TikTok's assurances, skepticism persists among key lawmakers, causing the White House to reconsider its options.

The situation is further complicated by President Trump's evolving position on TikTok, influenced by its impact on his election campaign. The potential deal also faces challenges from the Chinese government, unwilling to relinquish TikTok's algorithm, which is key to user engagement. The negotiations' outcome holds significant implications for US-China relations and raises national security concerns, as lawmakers debate the risks of Chinese access to user data and potential propaganda dissemination.

Donald Trump Tik Tok National Security Byte Dance Tom Cotton Us China Relations Oracle

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of the ongoing negotiations surrounding TikTok's operations in the US, highlighting significant public interest and potential impacts on national security and international relations. However, its reliance on unnamed sources and lack of detailed evidence in certain areas affect its overall accuracy and source quality. While the narrative is generally clear and accessible, the complexity of the subject matter and limited transparency may pose challenges for readers seeking a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. Despite these limitations, the article successfully captures the controversy and potential implications of the TikTok deal, contributing to ongoing discussions about data privacy and foreign influence.

Accuracy

The article presents a number of factual claims that align with known information, such as Sen. Tom Cotton's opposition to any TikTok deal that doesn't comply with US legislation and Oracle's involvement in housing TikTok's user data. However, some claims, like President Trump's executive order and its implications, require verification for precision. The story is largely accurate but lacks detailed evidence for certain claims, such as the specifics of the proposed licensing agreement and the exact stance of the Chinese government. These areas need further verification to ensure complete factual accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the perspectives of US political figures and Oracle, with limited representation of TikTok's or the Chinese government's viewpoints. While it mentions skepticism from lawmakers and concerns about national security, it does not provide a balanced view of TikTok's or ByteDance's positions. This creates a potential bias towards the US perspective, omitting critical insights from other stakeholders involved in the negotiations.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, providing a coherent narrative about the ongoing negotiations and potential roadblocks for TikTok's deal with Oracle. However, some sections could benefit from more detailed explanations, particularly regarding the legal and technical aspects of the proposed licensing agreement. The tone remains neutral, but the lack of detailed context in certain areas may affect overall comprehension.

Source quality

The story cites 'three people with direct knowledge of the matter' and 'sources close to' involved parties, which raises questions about the reliability and credibility of these unnamed sources. The lack of direct quotes or statements from official spokespersons diminishes the authority of the information presented. Without clear attribution to credible and authoritative sources, the article's overall source quality is weakened.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of how information was gathered and the identities of the sources. It does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the impartiality of the reporting. Additionally, the article does not explain the methodology behind its claims, leaving readers without a clear understanding of how conclusions were reached or what factors may influence the narrative.