After years of threats, court battles, and high-stakes negotiations, TikTok’s American future now rests on a freshly inked deal. President Donald Trump is set to sign an agreement that restructures TikTok into a U.S.-based joint venture, reducing ByteDance’s stake to less than 20 percent.

On paper, the move satisfies a bipartisan law passed in 2024 requiring TikTok to either divest or face a nationwide ban. In reality, the structure raises as many questions as it answers — especially about who controls the levers of influence inside one of the world’s most powerful social platforms.

The headlines emphasize majority U.S. control, but legal ownership only scratches the surface. Governance is where real authority lies. According to the deal framework, seven board seats will oversee TikTok US, six of them held by Americans. Trump has floated names like Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and Fox Corporation’s Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch as potential stakeholders.

That roster is striking. It shifts TikTok’s ownership not just to American investors, but to a circle of billionaires with long-standing political and media interests. For critics, that concentration of power raises new risks: less about Beijing shaping narratives, more about U.S. media moguls using TikTok’s reach to advance their own agendas.

And then there’s ByteDance’s reduced stake. Less than 20 percent sounds clean, but equity tells only part of the story. Control can flow through technical dependencies, licensing agreements, or informal influence channels. If TikTok US still relies on engineers in Beijing to refine code or maintain servers, ByteDance’s reach could remain stronger than the numbers suggest.

TikTok’s value — and its controversy — rests on its recommendation system. The algorithm shapes not only what users see but also how culture, politics, and consumer behavior unfold online.

The White House insists the algorithm will be “controlled by America.” In practice, that likely means Oracle will be tasked with rebuilding or localizing it for U.S. oversight. But algorithmic systems thrive on vast stores of behavioral data. If the transition severs that data flow, TikTok’s hallmark personalization could falter, frustrating users and creators alike.

Even if Oracle succeeds technically, the surveillance issue doesn’t vanish. Ownership change doesn’t automatically curtail intrusive data harvesting. Users will still be tracked across digital surfaces, their behavior fed into ad targeting systems — the only difference being who holds the keys.

Experts in Australia have flagged the same paradox. As one digital rights advocate noted, whether Chinese or American, the real issue isn’t who owns TikTok but that algorithms are powered by surveillance, not transparency.

The politics around the deal are almost as important as its legal architecture. Trump can frame the agreement as both a tough stance on China and a win for his allies in business. By approving the deal, he transforms a ban threat into an opportunity to realign control of a platform with enormous cultural reach.

The timing is strategic. With the 2026 midterms approaching, control of TikTok could matter as much for political messaging as for national security. A U.S.-based TikTok under investors aligned with Trump and Murdoch opens the door to concerns about partisan influence over moderation and recommendation practices.

In an ecosystem where algorithms decide which voices rise and which vanish, that risk is not theoretical.

What happens in the U.S. rarely stays in the U.S., especially in tech governance. By forcing a partial divestiture and restructuring of TikTok, Washington has set a precedent that other countries could replicate.

Australia has already been drawn into the debate. Some lawmakers there argue that if America gets a “safe” version of TikTok, Australia should align with that iteration rather than remain tied to ByteDance’s original. Yet others warn that swapping Chinese ownership for Murdoch-linked influence hardly solves the problem. News Corp already dominates Australia’s media landscape; a TikTok stake would amplify that dominance in a space increasingly central to youth culture and political discourse.

Beijing’s response is another open variable. Retaliation against U.S. firms operating in China would not be surprising, especially given the symbolic sting of forcing one of its most successful platforms into a corner. That tit-for-tat dynamic could intensify the tech cold war between Washington and Beijing, with companies and consumers caught in the crossfire.

History also looms large. Murdoch’s last attempt at social media ownership — Myspace — collapsed spectacularly after Facebook arrived with a sharper design and stronger growth. If Oracle’s rebuild of TikTok’s algorithm stumbles or degrades user experience, could TikTok’s U.S. venture follow the same trajectory? The possibility is not far-fetched.

The agreement may avert a ban and deliver a political win for the White House, but it leaves several crucial questions unresolved. Chief among them: how much visibility American regulators will truly gain into TikTok’s recommendation system. On paper, ownership is shifting. In practice, the algorithm — the engine of influence — remains a black box.

Investor control is another unresolved piece. ByteDance may hold less than 20 percent, yet influence is rarely measured by equity alone. Technical dependencies, governance structures, or even soft power in negotiations could leave the Chinese parent with a degree of sway that isn’t obvious in the public filings.

And then there’s privacy. Whether Chinese or American, TikTok still operates on intensive user surveillance. A U.S.-owned platform may offer political comfort, but it doesn’t grant users meaningful protection from data harvesting.

Finally, there’s the question of precedent. If this deal becomes a model, it could accelerate the trend toward a fragmented internet, where global platforms are routinely broken apart or localized to meet political demands. Whether that outcome protects users or simply hardens partisan control is still up for debate.

Even the business model deserves scrutiny. Advertisers and creators may hesitate to deepen their investment until they see whether TikTok US is stable, independent, and profitable enough to stand on its own. A platform that thrives on user trust can’t afford to look like a political football.

What the deal settles, then, is the immediate threat of a ban. What it doesn’t settle is whether the balance of control has genuinely shifted — or if the same power struggles are now playing out under a new corporate wrapper.