September 29, 2025 · Corruption, Ethics & Self-Dealing
· business deal controversy
Confirmed
TikTok Deal Draws 'Crony Capitalism' Criticism Over Politically Connected Investors
In September 2025, President Trump announced a deal transferring TikTok's U.S. operations to a group of American investors including Larry Ellison, the Murdoch family, and Andreessen Horowitz, resolving years of uncertainty over the app's ownership under a 2024 divestment law. The administration also sought a payment described as being "in the low billions" from the investor group to the federal government.
Critics, including a Yale management professor who surveyed more than 100 CEOs, called the payment arrangement a "shakedown" and cited it as an example of the administration extracting concessions from private business in exchange for regulatory favor. Nearly all the investors involved have shown sustained political loyalty to Trump, fueling concern that the deal rewarded political allies rather than resolving the national-security concerns that originally prompted the divestment law.
The episode was widely cited as part of a broader pattern in which the administration blended national-security rationale with deal-making that favored politically connected companies and individuals, raising questions about consistency and transparency in how such transactions were negotiated.
Critics, including a Yale management professor who surveyed more than 100 CEOs, called the payment arrangement a "shakedown" and cited it as an example of the administration extracting concessions from private business in exchange for regulatory favor. Nearly all the investors involved have shown sustained political loyalty to Trump, fueling concern that the deal rewarded political allies rather than resolving the national-security concerns that originally prompted the divestment law.
The episode was widely cited as part of a broader pattern in which the administration blended national-security rationale with deal-making that favored politically connected companies and individuals, raising questions about consistency and transparency in how such transactions were negotiated.